Bearden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bearden v. State

481 So. 2d 542, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 170, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5841

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 8, 1986

DocketNo. 84-2176

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 481 So. 2d 542 (Bearden v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bearden v. State, 481 So. 2d 542, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 170, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5841 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, robbery with a deadly weapon, burglary with an assault or while armed with a dangerous weapon, and grand theft. The court sentenced him to consecutive terms of life imprisonment with a twenty-five year mandatory minimum for the first degree murder, seventy-five years imprisonment for the robbery, and seventy-five years imprisonment for the burglary. Appellant’s substantive issues are without merit; however, the judgment and sentences are incongruous with the proceedings below.

The conviction for grand theft cannot stand because the grand theft count in the indictment was nol-prossed in open court. The written sentences for robbery and burglary reflect twenty-five year mandatory minimums for drug trafficking, but the offenses for which appellant was charged and convicted did not involve [543]*543drugs. Thus, the twenty-five year mandatory mínimums on these two sentences must be stricken from the written orders.

The trial court also erred in retaining jurisdiction over one-third of the robbery sentence and one-third of the burglary sentence. The written sentences must be changed to indicate that jurisdiction was retained over one-third of the total consecutive sentences imposed. § 947.16(3), Fla. Stat. (1983); Martin v. State, 452 So.2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

We reverse the conviction for grand theft and remand the case for correction of the written sentences for robbery and burglary.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and HALL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, robbery with a deadly weapon, burglary with an assault or while armed with a dangerous weapon, and grand theft. The court sentenced him to consecutive terms of life imprisonment with a twenty-five year mandatory minimum for the first degree murder, seventy-five years imprisonment for the robbery, and seventy-five years imprisonment for the burglary. Appellant’s substantive issues are without merit; however, the judgment and sentences are incongruous with the proceedings below.

The conviction for grand theft cannot stand because the grand theft count in the indictment was nol-prossed in open court. The written sentences for robbery and burglary reflect twenty-five year mandatory minimums for drug trafficking, but the offenses for which appellant was charged and convicted did not involve [543]*543drugs. Thus, the twenty-five year mandatory mínimums on these two sentences must be stricken from the written orders.

The trial court also erred in retaining jurisdiction over one-third of the robbery sentence and one-third of the burglary sentence. The written sentences must be changed to indicate that jurisdiction was retained over one-third of the total consecutive sentences imposed. § 947.16(3), Fla. Stat. (1983); Martin v. State, 452 So.2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

We reverse the conviction for grand theft and remand the case for correction of the written sentences for robbery and burglary.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and HALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 So. 2d 542, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 170, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 5841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bearden-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack