BOBBY GORDON SHEFFIELD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for robbery with a firearm but vacated the illegal sentence provision restricting parole eligibility.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's request for additional psychiatric evaluations, but the sentence imposing a minimum 25-year parole restriction was illegal and must be vacated.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a defendant's request for additional psychiatric evaluations when two psychiatrists have already found the defendan…
[2] A sentence imposing a minimum parole restriction for a first-degree felony is illegal and must be vacated when such restriction is not authorized by law.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“for the remainder of his natural born life and a minimum of 25 years in prison before parole is to be considered”
Description of the illegal sentence provision that was vacated
Sheffield pleaded nolo contendere to robbery with a firearm after two psychiatrists found him competent to stand trial and sane at the time of the off…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Robbery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sheffield pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of robbery with a firearm reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion for extensive psychiatric evaluation.
Sheffield sought to rely upon the defense of insanity. Two psychiatrists examined Sheffield and found him to be competent to stand trial and sane at the date of the alleged offense. Sheffield’s sanity was determined by the court pursuant to Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.210(a). Sheffield requested further psychiatric evaluations and/or voluntary hospitalization for psychiatric evaluation. After an extensive hearing on the motions, the trial court denied Sheffield’s request. Sheffield has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1971); Olsen v. State, 338 So. 2d 225 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
We agree with Sheffield’s contention that the sentence imposed is illegal. See Noble v. State, 353 So. 2d 819 (Fla.1977). Sheffield was adjudicated guilty of robbery with a firearm, in violation of Section 812.-13(2)(a) and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment “for the remainder of his natural born life and a minimum of 25 years in prison before parole is to be considered”. The restriction on eligibility for parole is not authorized by law for a felony in the first degree. Wright v. State, 342 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1st DCA 1977). The sentence is therefore vacated and remanded with directions to delete this illegal provision from the sentence. Sheffield need not be present for this purpose.
SMITH, Acting C. J., ERYIN, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1971)
- Dewayne F. Noble, III v. State, 353 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1977)
- Wright v. State, 342 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Olsen v. State, 338 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)