SOLOMON D. ROBERTS, 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 trial court lacked statutory authority to retain jurisdiction over one-third of a life sentence, as such a sentence is indefinite.
Appellant challenged the trial court's retention of jurisdiction over one-third of his life sentence, arguing it lacked statutory authority. The State…
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 Life Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1145] PER CURIAM.
Appellant Solomon D. Roberts seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his “Petition to Invoke all Writs,” arguing that he was denied due process and equal protection when the trial court retained jurisdiction for thirty-three (33) years of his life sentence. Roberts contends that the trial court lacked statutory authority under section 947.16(3), Florida Statutes (1981), to retain jurisdiction over one-third of his life sentence because a life sentence is indefinite, making one-third indeterminable. Appellee State of Florida concedes to this argument and we agree.
In Cordero-Pena v. State, 421 So. 2d 661, 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), this Court held that the trial court cannot retain jurisdiction over a life sentence imposed under section 947.16(3) and that a defendant’s entitlement to parole consideration is solely controlled by the separate statutory requirement that he be required to serve no less than twenty-five (26) years before becoming eligible for parole. See § 775.082(1), Fla. Stat. (1981).
As in Cordero-Pena, section 775.082(1) controls Robert’s life sentence. We therefore remand the case to the trial court with instructions to strike that part of the sentence. Roberts need not be present for the correction of the sentence.
All other issues raised by Roberts are successive and have previously been denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Solomon Roberts v. State, 156 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ate, 761 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Roberts v. State, 684 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Roberts v. State, 656 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Roberts v. State, 561 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). . The singular exception is Roberts v. State, 821 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), in which Roberts successfully argued that the trial court lacked statutory authority to retain jurisdiction over one-third of his life sentence. Although we granted this limited relief, we also denied relief on the other claims a…
-
Moore v. State, 902 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…risdiction over one-third of Moore’s sentence. “[A] court cannot retain jurisdiction over a life term because such a sen [*241] tence is indeterminate.” Wainwright v. State, 704 So. 2d 511, 515 (Fla.1997); Viera, 698 So. 2d at 919; Roberts v. State, 821 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), revieiv denied, 841 So. 2d 466 (Fla.2003); Cordero-Pena v. State, 421 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Williams, 868 So. 2d at 1234-35. Accordingly, we reverse the order, vacate Moore’s sentence and remand for the court to impose a…
Authorities Cited
- Belarmino Cordero-Pena v. State, 421 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)