From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crews v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Sep 27, 1984
456 So. 2d 959 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 83-1424.

September 27, 1984.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, St. Johns County, Richard O. Watson, J.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and David A. Henson, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Evelyn D. Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


The trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction for one-half of appellant's sentences because, at time of sentencing, the statute permitted retention of jurisdiction for a maximum period of one-third of any sentence. Section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1983). The State's contention that the absence of objection below to the sentence makes the issue non-applicable has previously been answered to the contrary. Brumley v. State, 455 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 1984).

Those portions of the sentences which retain jurisdiction for one-half of each sentence are set aside, and the cause is remanded so that the trial court may amend such sentences by retaining jurisdiction for a period not to exceed one-third of each sentence.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Crews v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Sep 27, 1984
456 So. 2d 959 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Crews v. State

Case Details

Full title:ARCHIE CREWS, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Sep 27, 1984

Citations

456 So. 2d 959 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Larson v. State

The purpose for the contemporaneous objection rule is not present in the sentencing process because any error…

Joyce v. State

First, the state contends that the error was waived. This court has recently held that the contemporaneous…