Doyle v. State, 615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Doyle v. State, 615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: RONALD CLIFFORD CHANDLER v. State (fladistctapp, 2020-12-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" RONALD CLIFFORD CHANDLER v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doyle v. State, 615 So. 2d 278, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (“[A] a trial court does not have the authority to order that a Florida sentence be served concurrently with another jurisdiction’s sentence.
discussed Cited "see" Napolitano v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doyle v. State, 615 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 629 So.2d 132 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1007 , 114 S.Ct. 1376 , 128 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994)(beeause the Department of Corrections has been given authority regarding placement of state prisoners, the trial court does not have the authority to order that a Florida sentence be served concurrently with another jurisdiction’s sentence.) Such an order is deemed a recommendation only.
cited Cited "see" Glenn v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doyle v. State, 615 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1007 , 114 S.Ct. 1376 , 128 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994); Schlosser v. Singletary, 597 So.2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
cited Cited "see" Colon-Morales v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doyle v. State, 615 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1007 , 114 S.Ct. 1376 , 128 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994); Schlosser v. Singletary, 597 So.2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stephens v. Sabol
D. Mass. · 2008 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Abrahams v. Comm’r of Correction, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 861, 863-65 , 786 N.E.2d 1249 (2003) (permitting such a sentence), with Doyle v. State, 615 So.2d 278, 278 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1993) (per curiam) (holding that Florida law gives to the Florida Department of Corrections discretion re *495 garding the placement of inmates serving sentences for multiple jurisdictions, so a Florida trial court cannot order that a Florida sentence be served concurrently with any other sentence, and deeming such an order a “recommendation”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert John DOYLE, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
91-2712.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Mar 16, 1993.
615 So. 2d 278
Nesbitt, Baskin and Goderich.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Carol J.Y. Wilson, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Jacqueline M. Valdespino and Judy Bone, Asst. Gen. Counsel for the Dept. of Corrections, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, BASKIN and GODERICH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was sentenced in federal court to imprisonment for bank robbery. Subsequently, defendant was charged with first-degree murder and sentenced in state court to life imprisonment with a minimum mandatory sentence of twenty-five years. The trial court's order directed defendant's state sentences be served concurrently with his federal sentence. Defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting that the trial court enforce the sentencing order making the state sentences concurrent with the federal sentence. The petition was denied; this appeal followed.

The manner in which an inmate may serve a Florida sentence concurrently with a federal sentence is by transfer to federal prison pursuant to section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes (1991). The language of this section invests in the Department of Corrections discretion regarding the placement of inmates serving sentences from multiple jurisdictions. Because the department has been given this authority, a trial court does not have the authority to order that a Florida sentence be served concurrently with another jurisdiction's sentence. Instead, the trial court's order is a recommendation. See Schlosser v. Singletary, 597 So.2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is discharged.