Sheffield v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sheffield v. State

363 So. 2d 620, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16850

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 31, 1978

DocketNo. JJ-249

StatusPublished

This text of 363 So. 2d 620 (Sheffield 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

Sheffield v. State, 363 So. 2d 620, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16850 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sheffield pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of robbery with a firearm reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion for extensive psychiatric evaluation.

Sheffield sought to rely upon the defense of insanity. Two psychiatrists examined Sheffield and found him to be competent to stand trial and sane at the date of the alleged offense. Sheffield’s sanity was determined by the court pursuant to Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.210(a). Sheffield requested further psychiatric evaluations and/or voluntary hospitalization for psychiatric evaluation. After an extensive hearing on the motions, the trial court denied Sheffield’s request. Sheffield has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Brown v. State, 245 So.2d 68 (Fla.1971); Olsen v. State, 338 So.2d 225 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

We agree with Sheffield’s contention that the sentence imposed is illegal. See Noble v. State, 353 So.2d 819 (Fla.1977). Sheffield was adjudicated guilty of robbery with a firearm, in violation of Section 812.-13(2)(a) and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment “for the remainder of his natural born life and a minimum of 25 years in prison before parole is to be considered”. The restriction on eligibility for parole is not authorized by law for a felony in the first degree. Wright v. State, 342 So.2d 565 (Fla.1st DCA 1977). The sentence is therefore vacated and remanded with directions to delete this illegal provision from the sentence. Sheffield need not be present for this purpose.

SMITH, Acting C. J., ERYIN, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Sheffield pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of robbery with a firearm reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion for extensive psychiatric evaluation.

Sheffield sought to rely upon the defense of insanity. Two psychiatrists examined Sheffield and found him to be competent to stand trial and sane at the date of the alleged offense. Sheffield’s sanity was determined by the court pursuant to Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.210(a). Sheffield requested further psychiatric evaluations and/or voluntary hospitalization for psychiatric evaluation. After an extensive hearing on the motions, the trial court denied Sheffield’s request. Sheffield has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Brown v. State, 245 So.2d 68 (Fla.1971); Olsen v. State, 338 So.2d 225 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

We agree with Sheffield’s contention that the sentence imposed is illegal. See Noble v. State, 353 So.2d 819 (Fla.1977). Sheffield was adjudicated guilty of robbery with a firearm, in violation of Section 812.-13(2)(a) and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment “for the remainder of his natural born life and a minimum of 25 years in prison before parole is to be considered”. The restriction on eligibility for parole is not authorized by law for a felony in the first degree. Wright v. State, 342 So.2d 565 (Fla.1st DCA 1977). The sentence is therefore vacated and remanded with directions to delete this illegal provision from the sentence. Sheffield need not be present for this purpose.

SMITH, Acting C. J., ERYIN, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 So. 2d 620, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheffield-v-state-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack