Home/Supreme Court of Florida/State v. Mobley

State v. Mobley

481 So. 2d 481, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 27
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 9, 1986
Docket66929
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 481 So. 2d 481 (State v. Mobley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Mobley, 481 So. 2d 481, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 27 (Fla. 1986).

Opinion

481 So.2d 481 (1986)

STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Cleve Andrew MOBLEY, Respondent.

No. 66929.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January 9, 1986.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Jeffrey Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us due to express and direct conflict with Cofield v. State, 453 So.2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.

The district court affirmed Mobley's convictions, but found reversible error in the trial court's retention of jurisdiction over one-third of his life sentence even though there was no objection at sentencing. We approve the decision of the district court.

If a trial court has no statutory authority to retain jurisdiction over a defendant's sentence, failure to object in the trial court will not preclude appellate review. State v. Walcott, 472 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1985). There is no statutory authority for retention of jurisdiction over an indeterminate sentence. Echols v. State, 484 So.2d 568 (Fla. Sept. 19, 1985); Cordero-Pena v. State, 421 So.2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court[*] and disapprove the contrary holding on this issue in Cofield.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[*] We find no need to discuss respondent's point III.

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

Related

Viera v. State
698 So. 2d 918 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Cofield v. State
602 So. 2d 586 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Arnett v. State
591 So. 2d 1014 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Stewart v. State
546 So. 2d 1193 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
State v. White
513 So. 2d 263 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Bradley v. State
511 So. 2d 638 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Staten v. State
500 So. 2d 297 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Roseman v. State
497 So. 2d 986 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Frazier v. State
488 So. 2d 166 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
State v. Whitfield
487 So. 2d 1045 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Cook v. State
481 So. 2d 1285 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
481 So. 2d 481, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mobley-fla-1986.