HERSCHEL LEE DELOACH, 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.
DeLoach was convicted of multiple counts related to breaking into pay telephone booths and possessing burglarious tools. The appellate court rejected his argument that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition to reduce his sentence, holding that appellate courts review only the legality of sentences, not the discretionary sentencing decisions of trial courts.
The appellate court held that it cannot review the discretionary sentencing decisions of trial courts and cannot disturb a sentence that is within the statutory limits. DeLoach's sentence was within the limits set by statute and therefore beyond the reach of the appellate court.
[1] Appellate courts review the legality of a sentence, not the philosophy or discretion of the trial court in imposing it.
[2] A reviewing court cannot disturb a sentence that is within the statutory limits.
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“But appellate Courts are concerned only with the legality of sentence, not the "philosophy" or the discretionary imposition of sentence confided to trial Courts.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that appellate review of sentences is limited to their legality, not their discretionary basis.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeLoach was charged in nine separate informations with entering certain outdoor pay telephone booths with intent to commit petit larceny, and in a ten…
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 Legality Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
The first nine of the foregoing ten appeals grew out of direct informations filed in the Pinellas County Circuit Court charging appellant Herschel Lee DeLoach with another not here joined with entering without breaking certain named outdoor pay telephone booths with intent to commit petit larceny. In the tenth appeal, Case No. 69-528, the same two defendants were charged with possession of burglarious tools designed for breaking open telephone units.
To each of the informations DeLoach filed motion to suppress the evidence on the ground of “unreasonable arrest, search and seizure”, and also filed separate motion to dismiss for failure to state an offense. All motions were in due course denied and, after first pleading not guilty, DeLoach later changed his plea to guilty as to each information. DeLoach was thereupon adjudged guilty upon each charge and sentenced to imprisonment. Later he filed a “Petition for Reconsideration of Sentence” and the Court accordingly reduced sentences in all except in Case No. 69-528 on appeal, as to which the Petition for Reconsideration was denied.
Notices of appeal were filed in all cases. However, to all intents and purposes, the appeals in all cases, except in No. 69-528, have been abandoned and should be now dismissed by this Court of its own motion.
The sole brief filed here is directed only to Assignment of Error No. 7, relating to denial of Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence in appeal case No. 69-528, the burglarious tool case. The sole argument in the brief in support of this assignment is a discussion of the “philosophy” of F.S. § 921.18, F.S.A., the indeterminate punishment statute and the discussion of that section by the Supreme Court of Florida in Carnley v. Cochran, Fla.1960, 118 So.2d 629, with emphasis on the “possibility for rehabilitation”.
But appellate Courts are concerned only with the legality of sentence, not the “philosophy” or the discretionary imposition of sentence confided to trial Courts. Presha v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 790; Darby v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 29; Davis v. State, Fla.1960, 123 *766So.2d 703; Le Prell v. State, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 18; Infante v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 542; Stanford v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 1.
A reviewing Court cannot disturb a sentence which is within the limits set by statute. The sentence in appeal No. 69-528 is within such limits and is therefore beyond reach of this Court.
The appeals in cases Nos. 69-519, 69-520, 69-521, 69-522, 69-523, 69-524, 69-525, 69-526 and 69-527 are severally dismissed ex mero mo tu.
The appeal in case No. 69-528 is affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stanford v. State, 110 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1959)
- Infante v. State, 197 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Davis v. State, 123 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1960)
- Darby v. State, 216 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Carnley v. Cochran, 118 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1960)
- Presha v. State, 216 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- LE Prell v. State, 124 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)