Infante v. State
| Decision Date | 11 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 66--602,66--602 |
| Citation | 197 So.2d 542 |
| Parties | Maria Christina INFANTE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Phillip A. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Barry N. Semet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C.J. and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
Maria Christina Infante appeals a judgment of conviction and the sentence of ten years in the State Prison for robbery. We affirm.
Appellant was charged by information with the crime of robbery. Pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, were entered. Plaintiff was adjudicated sane; she waived trial by jury and stood trial before the court. She was found guilty and after presentence investigation, she was sentenced. On this appeal her first point is directed to a claimed error in the admission into evidence of statements she made to the arresting officer. We find no error under this point upon authority of Montgomery v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 331; Watson v. State, Fla.1966, 190 So.2d 161.
Appellant's second point seeks a determination by this Court that the sentence of ten years in the State Prison for the crime of robbery is excessive under the circumstances of this case. It is urged that because the defendant is a young adult without previous criminal record, and because she is in need of psychiatric treatment, the sentence is excessive. The sentence is within the limits of the punishment imposed by the statute. See § 813.011, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. We hold that this Court has no power to reverse a sentence within the bounds set by the statute upon the ground that the sentence shows an abuse of the discretion exercised by the trial court.
The appellant suggests that § 924.06 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. grants to the appellate court the right to review a sentence upon the ground that it is excessive under the circumstances of the case, even though the sentence is within the limits of the penalty prescribed in the statute for the punishment of the particular crime. The pertinent portions of the statute are as follows:
'924.06 Appeal by defendant.--An appeal may be taken by the defendant only from:
'A sentence, on the ground that it is excessive or illegal.'
It is established in this State that a determination of the sentence to be imposed falls within the discretion to be exercised by the trial court. The exercise of discretion will not be disturbed if the sentence imposed does not exceed the bounds established by statute. Brown v. State, 1943, 152 Fla. 853, 13 So.2d 458; Walker v. State, Fla.1950, 44 So.2d 814; Rohdin v. State, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 371.
The language of the statute granting a right of appeal to the defendant from a sentence on the ground that it is excessive or illegal does not refer to a claimed excessiveness upon the basis of the circumstances of the particular defendant, but refers to punishment not prescribed by law or in addition to that, prescribed by law.
In ascertaining the meaning and effect to be given the word 'or' the legislative intent is the determining factor. The conjunctive 'or' is often used to join two aspects of the same entity rather than two separate entities; thus, the language used by the legislature in this statute may be sensibly construed to mean that a sentence is excessive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.M. v. State
...of discretion will not be disturbed if the sentence imposed does not exceed the bounds established by statute." Infante v. State, 197 So.2d 542, 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (citations omitted); see also Darby v. State, 216 So.2d 29, 30 (Fla.1968); Davis v. State, 123 So.2d 703, 707 (Fla.1960); W......
-
Booker v. State
...Law § 526 (1938). See also Stanford v. State, 110 So.2d 1 (Fla.1959); Walker v. State, 44 So.2d 814 (Fla.1950); Infante v. State, 197 So.2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Rohdin v. State, 105 So.2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). This view is also consistent with the United States Supreme Court's treatmen......
-
Corfan Banco Asuncion Paraguay v. Ocean Bank
...Gusman Residuary Trust No. 1, 629 So.2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Harper v. Cooper, 226 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Infante v. State, 197 So.2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Dotty v. State, 197 So.2d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967).4 One respected treatise on the Uniform Commercial Code analyzes the cod......
-
Wright v. State
...find no abuse of discretion in imposing the sentence on this count. Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853, 13 So.2d 458 (1943); Infante v. State, 197 So.2d 542 (Fla.3d DCA 1967); Cole v. State, 262 So.2d 902 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). The five year sentence on the possession of cocaine count must be reverse......