HAYMAN B. BROWN, 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.
Hayman Brown appeals his convictions for sexual battery with great force and burglary of a dwelling with assault, challenging his denial of a motion for new trial, the imposition of consecutive 160-year sentences, and the trial court's retention of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences but remanded for correction of the jurisdiction retention language.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial, the consecutive 160-year sentences are not excessive and will not be disturbed on appeal, and the trial court must be remanded to correct the sentences to clarify that it retains jurisdiction over one-third of the total consecutive sentences rather than one-third of each individual sentence.
[1] A trial court does not err in denying a motion for a new trial when the record fails to support allegations of error regarding evidentiary rulings or requested jury instr…
[2] A motion for judgment of acquittal should be denied where the evidence, even if circumstantial, is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the evidence, albeit circumstantial, was inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence of crimes charged”
Establishes the sufficiency of evidence standard for affirming convictions despite circumstantial nature
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was convicted of sexual battery with great force (a life felony) and burglary of a dwelling with assault (a first-degree felony). The trial cour…
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 Great Force cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant, Hayman Brown, appeals his convictions of sexual battery with great force and burglary of a dwelling with assault and the sentences imposed thereon. Brown’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief, stating that she is unable to make a good faith argument that reversible error occurred in the trial court, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967). Brown has failed to avail himself of leave granted to file a brief pro se. Our review, therefore, is based upon the allegations of error asserted by Brown’s trial counsel in the Statement of Judicial Acts to be Reviewed:
The court erred in the denial of Defendant’s Motion for New Trial.
The court erred in that the sentence was excessive.
The court erred in the retention of jurisdiction.
We have examined the various grounds raised in the Motion for New Trial and are unpersuaded of any error in the denial of that motion. Review of the record below fails to support any allegation of error as to the trial court’s rulings on evidentiary matters or requested jury instructions. Furthermore, there was no error in the denial of a defense motion for judgment of acquittal where the evidence, albeit circumstantial, was inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence of crimes charged. See McArthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 972, 976, n. 12 (Fla.1979).
Likewise, Brown’s contentions that the two consecutive 160 year sentences imposed upon him are excessive lack merit. The burglary offense, a first degree felony, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not to exceed life. § 810.02(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The sexual battery offense is a life felony punishable by life imprisonment or a term of not less than 30 years. § 775.082(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981).1 The 160 year terms imposed by the trial court are not in excess of the statutory máximums of life applicable to these crimes. Harmon v. State, 416 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), affirmed, 438 So. 2d 369 (Fla.1983); Saname v. State, 427 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). As these sentences imposed are consistent with the applicable statutory penalties, they will not be disturbed upon appeal.
Appellant’s final point upon appeal concerns the retention of jurisdiction during consecutive terms of incarceration and mandates remand for correction of the sentences imposed. Section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes, provides for the retention of jurisdiction of one-third of the maximum sentence imposed for certain enumerated crimes, including those of which Brown was convicted. In the event that consecutive sentences are imposed, the trial court is empowered to retain jurisdiction for one-third of the total consecutive sentences. Id. In the instant case, the trial court stated at sentencing that it was retaining jurisdiction for “the first third” of each sentence. While the court could assume jurisdiction over the first third of Brown’s total 320 year term, it was not authorized to exercise jurisdiction over the first third of Brown’s first 160 years of incarceration and then reclaim jurisdiction over the first third of the second term when it commences. Adams v. State, 435 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Goree v. State, 411 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Accordingly, the trial court must correct the sentences to clarify that it retains jurisdiction over one-third of the total consecutive sentences.
Judgment affirmed; remanded for correction of sentences.
WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur. . We note that the 1983 amendment to § 775.-082(3)(a), establishing a maximum sentence of 40 years, is not applicable to this crime committed prior to October 1, 1983, the effective date of that amendment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heath v. State, 558 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…Second, it was error for the trial court to retain jurisdiction over a portion of each of the consecutive sentences imposed, rather than over one-third of the total of the consecutive sentences imposed. § 947.16(3), Fla.Stat. (1983); Brown v. State, 458 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The order denying appellant’s 3.800(a) motion is therefore REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further consistent proceedings. SHIVERS, C.J., and NIMMONS, J, concur. . Appellant committed the offenses…
-
Sapp v. State, 864 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…over one-third of the total of the defendant’s consecutive sentences, rather than retaining jurisdiction over one-third of each of the consecutive sentences imposed). See also Famiglietti v. State, 499 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Brown v. State, 458 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). To the extent that the trial court concluded that appellant was barred from raising his sentencing challenge because he had made other challenges to the retention of jurisdiction on appeal and in other post-conviction motions,…
-
Emory E. Weaver, III v. State, 466 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…the oral pronouncement of the court, that the trial court retains jurisdiction over one-half of the total consecutive sentences imposed, rather than, as now appears, one-half of each sentence. § 947.16(3), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1982). See Brown v. State, 458 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 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,…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Nadean O. McARTHUR v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977)
- Harmon v. State, 438 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1983)
- Goree v. State, 411 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Adams v. State, 435 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Elario Suraz Saname v. State, 427 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Harmon v. State, 416 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)