Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

633 So. 2d 13

Docket No. 81896.

Bedford v. State

Michael BEDFORD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided March 10, 1994.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1994-03-10

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Bedford claims the kidnapping sentence is illegal and may be corrected. The district court denied relief on the rationale that we had previously affirmed that sentence and because the law of the case precluded review. Judge Anstead dissented, urging that an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time. We agree with the dissent of Judge Anstead, and for the reasons expressed therein, we hold that an illegal sentence may be corrected even after it has been erroneously affirmed. In reviewing Bedford's sentence we find that the only illegal part of the sentence is the prohibition of eligibility for parole. The judge could legally impose a life sentence in the kidnapping charge, but could not preclude eligibility for parole for kidnapping.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Williams v. State

Relies on 589 So. 2d 245 - Bedford v. State · Bedford v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-03-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2018

20 state decisions

100199420002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*14 Michael Bedford, pro se.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and James J. Carney, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

¶3McDONALD, Justice.

¶4We exercise our discretion and review Bedford v. State,617 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction under the seldom applicable "all writs" provision of article V, section 3(b)(7) of the Florida Constitution.

¶5We previously had jurisdiction of Bedford's kidnapping sentence in conjunction with his appeal from a conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence of death. Bedford v. State,589 So.2d 245 (Fla. 1991). In that appeal we vacated Bedford's death sentence with directions to impose a life sentence on the murder charge, but affirmed his kidnapping sentence of life which had been one for life without eligibility of parole. Our attention had not been directed to the correctness of the kidnapping sentence.

¶6Bedford claims the kidnapping sentence is illegal and may be corrected. The district court denied relief on the rationale that we had previously affirmed that sentence and because the law of the case precluded review. Judge Anstead dissented, urging that an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time. We agree with the dissent of Judge Anstead, and for the reasons expressed therein, we hold that an illegal sentence may be corrected even after it has been erroneously affirmed.

¶7In reviewing Bedford's sentence we find that the only illegal part of the sentence is the prohibition of eligibility for parole. The judge could legally impose a life sentence in the kidnapping charge, but could not preclude eligibility for parole for kidnapping. The appropriate remedy, therefore, is to strike the provision relative to parole for the kidnapping charge.

¶8The decision of the district court is quashed, and Bedford's kidnapping sentence is modified by striking the provision that states that Bedford is ineligible for parole for twenty-five years.[*]

¶9It is so ordered.

¶10BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶11[*] This does not affect his sentence for first-degree murder.

/633/so2d/13 · .json · Public domain