Hayes v. State, 83-1610
| Decision Date | 11 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1610,83-1610 |
| Citation | 452 So.2d 656 |
| Parties | Anthony HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
On May 30, 1984, the state filed a motion to recall and modify the mandate which was issued on April 27, 1984, in this case pursuant to our opinion which was filed April 11, 1984, 448 So.2d 84. The state alleged in its motion that after the time period for filing a motion for rehearing had expired, the case of Castle v. State, 330 So.2d 10 (Fla.1976), came to the state's attention. The state alleged that our opinion conflicts with Castle v. State.
The state asks that we recall the mandate and modify our opinion. However, we do not agree that our holding conflicts with Castle. Therefore, we deny the state's motion to withdraw the mandate, but we hereby modify our opinion to clarify the basis for the holding.
In this case the trial court retained jurisdiction over one-half of the sentence imposed pursuant to section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), which was the statute in effect at the time defendant committed the crime. The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court should have retained jurisdiction over only one-third of the sentence pursuant to section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1983), which became effective seven days before the defendant was sentenced. This court agreed with defendant's argument and remanded the case for correction of the sentence to reflect retention of jurisdiction over one-third of the sentence.
The stated basis for our holding was that, contrary to previous cases in which the permissible period for retention of jurisdiction had been increased from one-third to one-half, see, e.g., Reid v. State, 440 So.2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Wicker v. State, 438 So.2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), this situation presented no problem of an illegal ex post facto application of an increased "punishment" to defendant. As the state has now pointed out, Article X, Section 9, of the Florida Constitution provides that "[r]epeal or amendment of a criminal statute shall not affect prosecution or punishment for any crime previously committed." This provision has been interpreted to mean that a defendant is not entitled to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glover v. State
...the offense was committed; at the time of trial, the maximum sentence had been statutorily reduced to five years. In Hayes v. State, 452 So.2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the court held that retention of jurisdiction does not affect "punishment" or sentence, within the meaning of Article X, Sec......
-
Walcott v. State
...sentenced on June 28, 1983, the trial judge erred in retaining jurisdiction over the first one-half of the sentence. See Hayes v. State, 452 So.2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes, applies only to certain enumerated offenses, including burglary of a dwelling and b......
-
State v. Reininger
...Florida Constitution, regardless of whether the amendment allows for a more favorable result to the defendant. See Hayes v. State , 452 So.2d 656, 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) ("This provision [ Article X, section 9 ] has been interpreted to mean that a defendant is not entitled to the benefit of......
-
Nazworth v. State, 83-640
...Const. was applicable. The Second District, in Hayes v. State, 448 So.2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), on motion to modify mandate, 452 So.2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), specifically held to this effect in ruling that the one-third period applied where the defendant was sentenced after the effective d......