Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

825 So. 2d 513

Docket No. 4D02-2518.

Hernandez v. State

Reinaldo HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 11, 2002.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2002-09-11

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2005

12 state decisions

Relies on 764 So. 2d 829 - Hampton v. State · MacIas v. State · Bingham v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-09-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Reinaldo Hernandez, Miami, pro se.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant filed a rule 3.800(a) motion challenging the trial court's retention of *514 jurisdiction over one-third of his sentence, claiming that the retention was illegal because the trial court failed to give any reasons for the retention of jurisdiction. This is a proper claim for relief under rule 3.800(a). See Bingham v. State,813 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Hampton v. State,764 So.2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Macias v. State,614 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

¶5The trial court erred in summarily denying appellant's motion as improper under rule 3.800(a). We reverse and remand to the trial court to either relinquish the retention of jurisdiction over appellant's sentence or to make specific individual findings in accordance with the statute on retention of jurisdiction. Bingham.

¶6REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶7FARMER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ. concur.

/825/so2d/513 · .json · Public domain