Prince v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Prince v. State

398 So. 2d 976, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19749

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1981

DocketNo. WW-347

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 398 So. 2d 976 (Prince 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

Prince v. State, 398 So. 2d 976, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19749 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of multiple convictions and sentences which we affirm except as to the trial judge’s retention of jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 947.16(3) Florida Statutes, for review of any parole release order. This statute was enacted subsequent to the commission of the offenses in the present case and, since it substantively alters appellant’s situation to his disadvantage, retroactive application of the provision would be ex post facto in effect and is thus impermissible. State v. Williams, 397 So.2d 663 (Fla.1981), 6 FLW 263; Rodriquez v. State, 380 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980); cf., Weaver v. Graham, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1980).

Accordingly, we reverse insofar as the trial judge retained jurisdiction to review [977]*977parole release orders, and remand the cause for deletion of that portion of the orders of commitment. The judgments of conviction and sentences are otherwise affirmed.

SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ., and WILLIAM C. OWEN, Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of multiple convictions and sentences which we affirm except as to the trial judge’s retention of jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 947.16(3) Florida Statutes, for review of any parole release order. This statute was enacted subsequent to the commission of the offenses in the present case and, since it substantively alters appellant’s situation to his disadvantage, retroactive application of the provision would be ex post facto in effect and is thus impermissible. State v. Williams, 397 So.2d 663 (Fla.1981), 6 FLW 263; Rodriquez v. State, 380 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980); cf., Weaver v. Graham, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1980).

Accordingly, we reverse insofar as the trial judge retained jurisdiction to review [977]*977parole release orders, and remand the cause for deletion of that portion of the orders of commitment. The judgments of conviction and sentences are otherwise affirmed.

SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ., and WILLIAM C. OWEN, Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

398 So. 2d 976, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prince-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack