ELARIO S. SANAME, APPELLANT,
v.
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 Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order retaining jurisdiction over the defendant's sentence for second-degree murder, finding that the trial court failed to comply with the statutory requirement to state reasons for retention with individual particularity, despite prior remand instructions to do so.
The trial court's justification was insufficient. Simply referencing general circumstances without citing specific facts or circumstances does not meet the statutory requirement of stating reasons with individual particularity, and incorporation by reference of other documents does not cure this deficiency. The retention of jurisdiction was vacated.
[1] A trial court's retention of jurisdiction over a sentence must be justified with reasons stated with individual particularity, not mere generalities.
[2] Incorporating by reference a memorandum or presentence investigation report does not satisfy the statutory requirement for particularized reasons for retaining jurisdicti…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“simply referencing such things as 'the circumstances surrounding this offense,' without citing any of the facts or circumstances of the crime, were insufficient to meet the requirement of Section 947.-16(3)(a) that justification for retention of jurisdiction be stated with individual particularity”
Establishes the legal standard that mere general references are inadequate; specific facts must be cited
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElario Saname was convicted of second-degree murder. The trial court retained jurisdiction over his sentence but justified the retention by citing onl…
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 Retention Of Jurisdiction Over Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
In Sanante v. State, 427 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), this court remanded this cause to the trial court with directions to either vacate the order retaining jurisdiction over appellant’s sentence for second-degree murder or to state the reasons for retaining that jurisdiction with individual particularity. The opinion specifically cites Abbott v. State, 421 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), another appeal from the same trial judge, in which we held that simply referencing such things as “the circumstances surrounding this offense,” without citing any of the facts or circumstances of the crime, were insufficient to meet the requirement of Section 947.-16(3)(a) that justification for retention of jurisdiction be stated with individual particularity. Accord, Wilson v. State, 414 So. 2d 512, 513 (Fla. 1982); Moore v. State, 392 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Once again, and contrary to this court’s explicit directions, the trial judge has justified his retention of jurisdiction by simply citing “the circumstances surrounding this offense and the characteristics of the Defendant’s propensity for criminal involvement.” His incorporation by reference of defense counsel’s memorandum regarding sentencing and appellant’s presentence investigation in no way cures this deficiency, for to hold that it did would render meaningless the express statutory requirement that the reasons be stated with particularity. In light of this failure to enter an appropriate order setting out the particular facts and circumstances which justify the retention of jurisdiction, we vacate the retention of jurisdiction.
REVERSED.
WIGGINTON, J., concurs.
NIMMONS, J., specially concurs with opinion.
NIMMONS, Judge, specially
concurring.
As I recently observed in my concurring opinion in Wilson v. State, 449 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984):
I am not as convinced as my colleagues that the statute contemplates review by appellate courts of the sufficiency of the reasons stated by the trial court for retention. See Moore v. State, 392 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (Cowart, J., specially concurring); compare Mobley v. State, 409 So. 2d 1031, 1038 (Fla.1982) (failure of trial court to make any findings justifying retention vacated and cause remanded so that findings may be made). In view of this court’s previous decisions in retention appeals, e.g. Abbott v. State, 421 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and Saname v. State, 427 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), I concur in the court’s decision to reverse on this ground. However, I favor certifying to the Supreme Court the following question as one of great public importance:
Do the appellate courts of this State have jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the reasons stated by trial courts for retention of jurisdiction under Section 947.16(3)(a)?
I adhere to those sentiments and, although concurring in the court’s opinion, would again favor certifying to the Supreme Court the above question as one of great public importance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 481 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ch is less than a life sentence and therefore within the sentencing guidelines. See Harmon v. State, 438 So. 2d 369 (Fla.1983); Alvarez v. State, 358 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1978); Saname v. State, 427 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 448 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The judgments of conviction and sentences appealed from are in all respects Affirmed.…
-
Thomas v. State, 484 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…for substance and reasonableness. The sentence under appeal is accordingly affirmed. Affirmed. . See Wilson v. State, 449 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (Nimmons, J. concurring), vacated other grounds, 467 So. 2d 996 (Fla.1985); Sanante v. State, 448 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA) (Nimmons, J. concurring), rev. denied, 453 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1984); Moore v. State, 392 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (Cowart, J. concurring). See also Robinson v. State, 458 So. 2d 1132, 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (trial court vested wit…
-
Williams v. State, 456 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…arity the justification for retaining jurisdiction as required by section [*975] 947.16(3)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982) or relinquish jurisdiction over the first half of the sentence. Mobley v. State, 409 So. 2d 1031 (Fla.1982); Saname v. State, 448 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Abbott v. State, 421 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hampton v. State, 419 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Retention of jurisdiction vacated; remanded with instructions.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Autley Mobley v. State, 409 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1982)
- Moore v. State, 392 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Wilson v. State, 449 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Abbott v. State, 421 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Elario Suraz Saname v. State, 427 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Wilson v. State, 414 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1982)