Marshall v. State
| Decision Date | 17 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 83-295,83-718,s. 83-295 |
| Citation | 448 So.2d 603 |
| Parties | Percival Michael MARSHALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Maria M. Korvick, Judge.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and John H. Lipinski, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Diane Leeds and Richard Doran, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, BARKDULL and BASKIN, JJ.
We affirm the convictions appealed. We remand, however, for the entry of an order detailing the trial court's reasons for retaining jurisdiction in accordance with section 947.16(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), and for clarification to reflect that the court retains jurisdiction during one third of the total sentence. Goree v. State, 411 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); § 947.16(3), Fla.Stat. (1981).
Affirmed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State, 91-408
...v. Dugger, 526 So.2d 143, 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). See generally Mobley v. State, 409 So.2d 1031, 1038 (Fla.1982); Marshall v. State, 448 So.2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). However, this court has also held that the absence of such findings is a matter which can be raised by motion for post-convi......
-
Marshall v. Dugger, 87-2906
...court for entry of an order detailing the trial court's reasons for retention of jurisdiction over the sentences. See Marshall v. State, 448 So.2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The trial court entered its order complying with this court's mandate on June 21, The facts giving rise to this case are......
-
Weaver v. State, 83-907
...1st DCA 1984); Ferrey v. State, 457 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Parson v. State, 450 So.2d 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Marshall v. State, 448 So.2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Wicker v. State, 445 So.2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Wicker v. State, 438 So.2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Wicker v. State, ......
-
Diaz v. State, s. 89-305
...involved in this case. Because no written reasons were set out, the state agrees that the retention was erroneous, see Marshall v. State, 448 So.2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and that portion of the sentence is therefore stricken. Under the circumstances of this case, including its age, 2 the ......