X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On Dec. 17, 2004, Anthony Riles, appellant, pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offenses of possession of a controlled substance and assault of a public servant without an agreed punishment recommendation from the state. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court found appellant guilty and stated, “the court sentences you to five years in TDC. And the sentence will run concurrent.” At that point, appellant requested that he be allowed to surrender himself at 5 a.m. the following morning to begin his sentence. The trial court answered: “Yes, I will let you do that. Let me tell you something else. If you don’t show up I haven’t finalized this five years yet and I’m just going to double it. You got it?” Appellant replied, “Yes, sir.” The trial court then changed the reporting time to 8 a.m. the following morning. Appellant did not surrender himself the following morning, and on March 18, 2005, at another hearing, appellant admitted that he purposefully absconded, thus failing to surrender himself as promised. The trial court then pronounced appellant’s punishment at confinement for 10 years in each case and signed a judgment reflecting this sentence. In his sole issue, appellant contended that the trial court erred in increasing his sentence to ten years “after having already formally pronounced sentence as being only five years.” HOLDING:Affirmed. Even if the trial court initially pronounced its sentence and did not merely make a statement regarding what sentencing would possibly be, the trial court had the power to correct, modify, or vacate its order, the court stated. The court stated that the trial court, in granting appellant’s request to surrender himself the next morning, essentially set aside or vacated its previously pronounced sentence. Accordingly, the court held that the trial court acted within its authority when, only a few moments after it had initially sentenced appellant and before it had adjourned for the day, it set the five-year sentence aside. The court further held that the trial court did not err in subsequently assessing appellant’s punishment at confinement for 10 years at the March 18, 2005 hearing. OPINION:Jennings, J.; Nuchia, Jennings and Higley, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.