Neal v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Neal v. State

414 So. 2d 1146, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20240

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 1982

DocketNo. 81-512

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 414 So. 2d 1146 (Neal 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

Neal v. State, 414 So. 2d 1146, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20240 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

Finding no error in the admission of similar fact evidence to establish identity, Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959), and noting that defense counsel agreed to the consolidation of cases, we affirm the conviction of kidnapping and sexual battery; however, we strike as untimely the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over one-third of defendant Neal’s sentence. Section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1979) provides that “at the time of sentencing the judge may enter an order retaining jurisdiction .... ” The order retaining jurisdiction entered almost two months after sentence failed to comply with the statute. The court’s announcement two weeks after imposition of sentence that it intended to retain jurisdiction at a later date did not fulfill statutory requirements. See Hayes v. State, 400 So.2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Knight v. State, 398 So.2d 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

Affirmed as modified.

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

BASKIN, Judge.

Finding no error in the admission of similar fact evidence to establish identity, Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959), and noting that defense counsel agreed to the consolidation of cases, we affirm the conviction of kidnapping and sexual battery; however, we strike as untimely the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over one-third of defendant Neal’s sentence. Section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1979) provides that “at the time of sentencing the judge may enter an order retaining jurisdiction .... ” The order retaining jurisdiction entered almost two months after sentence failed to comply with the statute. The court’s announcement two weeks after imposition of sentence that it intended to retain jurisdiction at a later date did not fulfill statutory requirements. See Hayes v. State, 400 So.2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Knight v. State, 398 So.2d 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

414 So. 2d 1146, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neal-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack