Brown v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ALBERT BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2D01-3527 Opinion filed December 7, 2001. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Jack Espinosa, Jr., Judge. DAVIS, Judge. Albert Brown appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion. We reverse. Brown was sentenced for several crimes in 1984. In his motion Brown claimed that the sentencing court s retention of jurisdiction over the first one-third of one of the sentences is illegal. The trial court denied the motion as successive. Although our analysis of this case differs from Brown s analysis, it appears from the record before this court that the sentencing court s retention of jurisdiction is indeed impermissible. Both Brown and the trial court referred to Brown s sentencing guidelines scoresheet in prior documents attached to the trial court s order denying relief. If Brown was sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, retention of jurisdiction over any portion of his sentence is impermissible. See Fisher v. State, 745 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Consequently, the trial court must determine whether Brown was sentenced pursuant to the guidelines, and if so, it must strike the retention of jurisdiction from the judgment and sentence. Reversed and remanded. FULMER, A.C.J., and COVINGTON, J., Concur. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
