Heath v. State
This text of 558 So. 2d 165 (Heath 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
Appellant’s motion to correct sentence, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), is meritorious for two reasons. First, the trial court erred by retaining jurisdiction over one-half, rather than one-third, of the sentences imposed upon appellant. The retention statute in effect at the time appellant was convicted and sentenced should have been applied, rather than the statute in effect at the time the offense was committed.1 See Nazworth v. State, 473 So.2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Second, it was error for the trial court to retain jurisdiction over a portion of each of the consecutive sentences imposed, rather than over one-third of the total of the consecutive sentences imposed. § 947.16(3), Fla.Stat. (1983); Brown v. State, 458 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
The order denying appellant’s 3.800(a) motion is therefore REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further consistent proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
558 So. 2d 165, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1712, 1990 WL 26698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heath-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.