JOE WESLEY SKINNER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the repeal or amendment of a criminal statute does not affect prosecution or punishment for crimes previously committed.
Appellant, a juvenile offender, was charged as an adult after jurisdiction was waived. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Subsequently, he sought to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Juvenile Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to correct .a sentence addressed to the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. .
Appellant was seventeen years old when he was taken into custody as a juvenile offender. On December 6, 1977, jurisdiction of the juvenile court was waived pursuant to Section 3‘9.02(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1977) and he was charged as an adult with the offense of burglary of a structure and grand larceny which was alleged to have occurred on May 17, 1976. On October 26, 1978, defendant entered a plea of guilty to burglary of a structure and grand larceny. On January 4, 1979, he was sentenced on the burglary charge to five years in the state penitentiary and on the grand larceny charge to five years probation which was to run consecutively with the prison sentence. After expiration of the appeal period, defendant petitioned the trial court to vacate the sentence imposed and to impose sentence upon him as a youthful offender pursuant to provisions of Section 39.111(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1978) and Chapter 958, Florida Statutes (Supp.1978), both of which became effective October 1, 1978.1
The sentence which was originally passed upon defendant as an adult was well within that authorized pursuant to Section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1975). The repeal or amendment of a criminal statute does not affect prosecution or punishment for any crime previously committed. Art. X, § 9, Fla.Const.; Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla.4th DCA 1974), aff’d, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1976).
Affirmed.
. Ch. 78-414, § 16, Laws of Fla. and Ch. 78-84, Laws of Fla.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cooper v. State, 465 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…1st DCA 1983); Nairn v. State, 417 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Whitlock v. State, 404 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Owens, 395 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Postell v. State, 383 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); and Skinner v. State, 383 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). However, as appellant’s counsel points out, “Section 39.111(6) contains only two classes of sanction, juvenile and adult_” Subsection (e) states: “If the court determines not to impose adult sanctions, then the court must next de…
-
Michael L. Solloway, M.D. v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. & Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 421 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…those provisions which are carried into the new act and permits a prosecution under the original act irrespective of its nominal repeal. McKibben v. Mallory, 293 So. 2d 48 (Fla.1974); Raines v. State, 42 Fla. 141, 28 So. 57 (1900); Skinner v. State, 383 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Appellant’s reliance on Lester v. Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, State Board of Medical Examiners, 348 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), is misplaced. The Lester court, in construing the same 1977 statute…
-
Reilly v. Florida, 847 F. Supp. 951 (M.D. Fla. 1994)…oner’s argument may be, therefore this claim must fail. Repeal In 1987, the legislature repealed § 790.01(3). This subsection is not at issue in this case. This partial repeal does not affect Petitioner’s conviction.. Skinner v. State, 383 So.2d 767, 768 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), Art. X, § 9, Fla. Const. B. Claims Involving Double Jeopardy Violations In Ground two, Petitioner alleges that the convictions under §§ 838.021 and 836.10 constitute fundamental error in violation of the Fifth Amendment’…
Authorities Cited
- Darion Northrup Castle v. State, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1976)
- Darion Northrup Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)