Hampton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hampton v. State

419 So. 2d 354, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21540

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 8, 1982

DocketNo. 81-2144

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 419 So. 2d 354 (Hampton 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

Hampton v. State, 419 So. 2d 354, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21540 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

BERANEK, Judge.

Appellant raises four points on appeal in seeking reversal of his conviction and sentence. We find these arguments meritless except for the point on retention of jurisdiction. Appellant was convicted of four counts of robbery and sentenced to a total of 120 years. The court retained jurisdiction over the first third of this 120-year sentence without stating with particularity the justification for retaining jurisdiction. At the sentencing hearing, the State was requested to submit an order detailing the justification for retention of jurisdiction. Although the State Attorney agreed to prepare the order, it is not present in the file and was apparently never submitted to the court for signature. Section 947.16(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), clearly requires a specific justification. The statute provides as follows:

In retaining jurisdiction for the purposes of this act, the trial court judge shall state the justification with individual particularity, and said justification shall be made a part of the order.

Thus, we remand to the trial court with instructions to either relinquish jurisdiction over the first third of the sentence or state with individual particularity the justification for retaining jurisdiction. See Oliver v. State, 414 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The conviction is affirmed and the matter remanded for further sentencing procedures.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

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

BERANEK, Judge.

Appellant raises four points on appeal in seeking reversal of his conviction and sentence. We find these arguments meritless except for the point on retention of jurisdiction. Appellant was convicted of four counts of robbery and sentenced to a total of 120 years. The court retained jurisdiction over the first third of this 120-year sentence without stating with particularity the justification for retaining jurisdiction. At the sentencing hearing, the State was requested to submit an order detailing the justification for retention of jurisdiction. Although the State Attorney agreed to prepare the order, it is not present in the file and was apparently never submitted to the court for signature. Section 947.16(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), clearly requires a specific justification. The statute provides as follows:

In retaining jurisdiction for the purposes of this act, the trial court judge shall state the justification with individual particularity, and said justification shall be made a part of the order.

Thus, we remand to the trial court with instructions to either relinquish jurisdiction over the first third of the sentence or state with individual particularity the justification for retaining jurisdiction. See Oliver v. State, 414 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The conviction is affirmed and the matter remanded for further sentencing procedures.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 So. 2d 354, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hampton-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack