From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doyle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 16, 1993
615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Summary

In Doyle v. State, 615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the Third District concluded that the "language of [subsection (2) ]" that "invests in the Department of Corrections discretion regarding the placement of inmates" means that "a trial court does not have the authority to order that a Florida sentence be served concurrently with another jurisdiction's sentence."

Summary of this case from Johnson v. State

Opinion

No. 91-2712.

March 16, 1993.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Martin D. Kahn, J.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Carol J.Y. Wilson, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Jacqueline M. Valdespino and Judy Bone, Asst. Gen. Counsel for the Dept. of Corrections, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, BASKIN and GODERICH, JJ.


Defendant was sentenced in federal court to imprisonment for bank robbery. Subsequently, defendant was charged with first-degree murder and sentenced in state court to life imprisonment with a minimum mandatory sentence of twenty-five years. The trial court's order directed defendant's state sentences be served concurrently with his federal sentence. Defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting that the trial court enforce the sentencing order making the state sentences concurrent with the federal sentence. The petition was denied; this appeal followed.

The manner in which an inmate may serve a Florida sentence concurrently with a federal sentence is by transfer to federal prison pursuant to section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes (1991). The language of this section invests in the Department of Corrections discretion regarding the placement of inmates serving sentences from multiple jurisdictions. Because the department has been given this authority, a trial court does not have the authority to order that a Florida sentence be served concurrently with another jurisdiction's sentence. Instead, the trial court's order is a recommendation. See Schlosser v. Singletary, 597 So.2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is discharged.


Summaries of

Doyle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 16, 1993
615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

In Doyle v. State, 615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the Third District concluded that the "language of [subsection (2) ]" that "invests in the Department of Corrections discretion regarding the placement of inmates" means that "a trial court does not have the authority to order that a Florida sentence be served concurrently with another jurisdiction's sentence."

Summary of this case from Johnson v. State
Case details for

Doyle v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT JOHN DOYLE, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 16, 1993

Citations

615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Citing Cases

Johnson v. State

Hence, a sentence is not necessarily illegal on the basis that the sentencing judge lacks the authority to…

Glenn v. State

Moreover, the state maintained that the statute indicates the trial court lacks the authority to order the…