Montoya v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Montoya v. State

458 So. 2d 341, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2165, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15394

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 11, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1342

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 458 So. 2d 341 (Montoya 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

Montoya v. State, 458 So. 2d 341, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2165, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15394 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Chief Judge.

We find no merit in the issues raised by the defendant as to the trial [342]*342proceedings, so the conviction and sentence are affirmed. The trial court erred, however, in retaining jurisdiction over one-half the defendant’s sentence, on the authority of the April 21, 1982, amendment to section 947.16(8), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). It is irrelevant that this amendment was in effect at the time of the conviction. The law at the time of the offense applies, unless the law at the time of sentencing imposes a lesser penalty. Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Brumley v. State, 455 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). At the time the offense was committed, and at the time of sentencing, the law authorized the trial court to retain jurisdiction of only one-third of the defendant’s sentence.

This cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to amend that portion of the sentence which retains jurisdiction over the defendant’s sentence, so as to limit such jurisdiction to not more than one-third of the sentence. This case is affirmed in all other respects.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

COBB, Chief Judge.

We find no merit in the issues raised by the defendant as to the trial [342]*342proceedings, so the conviction and sentence are affirmed. The trial court erred, however, in retaining jurisdiction over one-half the defendant’s sentence, on the authority of the April 21, 1982, amendment to section 947.16(8), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). It is irrelevant that this amendment was in effect at the time of the conviction. The law at the time of the offense applies, unless the law at the time of sentencing imposes a lesser penalty. Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Brumley v. State, 455 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). At the time the offense was committed, and at the time of sentencing, the law authorized the trial court to retain jurisdiction of only one-third of the defendant’s sentence.

This cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to amend that portion of the sentence which retains jurisdiction over the defendant’s sentence, so as to limit such jurisdiction to not more than one-third of the sentence. This case is affirmed in all other respects.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 So. 2d 341, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2165, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montoya-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack