From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 14, 1985
470 So. 2d 864 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

No. 84-1829.

June 14, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Pinellas County, A. Philip Federico, J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Allyn Giambalvo, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


Defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for first degree burglary and grand theft. We strike the retention of jurisdiction provision of defendant's burglary sentence but otherwise affirm.

The trial court retained jurisdiction over defendant's burglary sentence pursuant to section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1983). The purpose of the retention statute is to prohibit the parole of a defendant without the trial judge's approval until after the defendant has served a specified part of his sentence. Williams v. State, 374 So.2d 1086 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). Parole, however, is not available to defendant because he was sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. § 921.001(8), Fla. Stat. (1983). Thus, the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over defendant's sentence. Emory v. State, 463 So.2d 1242 (Fla.2d DCA 1985); Hawkins v. State, 463 So.2d 480 (Fla.2d DCA 1985); Carter v. State, 464 So.2d 172 (Fla.2d DCA 1985).

DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and HALL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 14, 1985
470 So. 2d 864 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:JESSIE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jun 14, 1985

Citations

470 So. 2d 864 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

The purpose of the statute is to prohibit parole of a criminal defendant convicted of an enumerated offense…

Lambert v. State

We further note that because sentencing was under the guidelines, the trial court erred in retaining…