Macias v. State, 92-118
| Decision Date | 16 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-118,92-118 |
| Citation | 614 So.2d 1216 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D742 Lazaro MACIAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John C. Schaible, Florida Institutional Legal Services, Gainesville, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Marc E. Brandes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
This is an appeal by the defendant Lazaro Macias from a trial court order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The defendant contends that the reasons given by the trial court in its order retaining jurisdiction over one-third of the defendant's sentence [Sec. 947.16(3), Fla.Stat. (1981) ] were legally insufficient, and that, accordingly, the subject retention of jurisdiction should be vacated. We agree and reverse.
First, we reject the state's sole argument on this appeal that an attack on the legal sufficiency of a trial court order retaining jurisdiction over one-third of the prison sentence [Sec. 947.16(3), Fla.Stat. (1981) ] cannot be raised on a motion to correct illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) and can only be raised on a direct appeal. We conclude that where the order contains, as here, legally insufficient reasons for retaining such jurisdiction, that portion of the sentence which retains jurisdiction in the trial court for one-third of the prison sentence imposed is clearly illegal and may be vacated on a motion to correct illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a). See Anderson v. State, 584 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); cf. State v. Chaplin, 490 So.2d 52 (Fla.1986); Thomas v. State, 611 So.2d 1329, (Fla.3d DCA 1993).
Second, we conclude, and the state does not disagree, that the reasons given by the trial court in its order retaining jurisdiction over one-third of the defendant's sentence are legally insufficient. As the defendant correctly contends, the reasons given suffer from a variety of legal deficiencies which we will not burden this opinion to analyze in any detail. Suffice it to say that some of the reasons given are flatly inconsistent with the jury verdict; others are vague, conclusory, insubstantial, and, without dispute, unsupported by the record. None, either individually or collectively, justify the trial court's retention of jurisdiction. See Cahill v. State, 489 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Robinson v. State, 458 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State
...DCA 2002); Thames v. State, 769 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Hampton v. State, 764 So.2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); and Macias v. State, 614 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. The Second District in Wright held that the failure of a sentencing c......
-
Amazon v. State, 2D03-4440.
...DCA 2002); Thames v. State, 769 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Hampton v. State, 764 So.2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); and Macias v. State, 614 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Affirmed; conflict NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and SALCINES, JJ., Concur. ...
-
Moore v. State
...to the court's retention of jurisdiction is not based on the absence of written reasons to support such retention. See Macias v. State, 614 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). But see Wright v. State, 864 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), review granted, 889 So.2d 72 ...
-
Wright v. State, 2D03-3165.
...So.2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and Hampton v. State, 764 So.2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); the Third District's opinion in Macias v. State, 614 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); and the Fourth District's opinion in Hernandez v. State, 825 So.2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA Affirmed; conflict certified. ALTE......