Bingham v. State
This text of 813 So. 2d 1021 (Bingham 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.
Opinion
Theodore BINGHAM, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Appellant, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed a rule 3.800(a) motion challenging the trial court's retention of jurisdiction over one-third of his sentence, claiming that the trial court did not make the appropriate findings to retain jurisdiction in his case. Because the trial court failed to make specific and particular findings justifying the retention of jurisdiction in accordance with section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1981), and Hampton v. State, 764 So.2d 829, 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), we vacate the sentencing order and remand for the trial court to either relinquish jurisdiction or make specific individual findings in accordance with the statute on why retaining jurisdiction is appropriate.
VACATED and REMANDED.
BOOTH and LEWIS, JJ., concur; WOLF, J., concurs with written opinion.
WOLF, J., concurring.
I concur only because I am constrained to do so by Hampton v. State, 764 So.2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
813 So. 2d 1021, 2002 WL 518540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bingham-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.