IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA STEPHEN R ...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

STEPHEN R. WATSON Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. /

c

Case No. SC12- 2599 5th DCA No. 5D06-0802

ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT

PAMELA JO BONDI ATTORNEY GENERAL

REBECCA ROCK McGUIGAN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Florida Bar Number 0568759

WESLEY HEIDT BUREAU CHIEF Florida Bar Number 0773026 444 Seabreeze Boulevard, Suite 500 Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 (386) 238-4990/ (386) 238-4997 (fax) crimappdab@

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................. i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.............................................................................ii

STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS........................................................... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.........................................................................3

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................... 4

ON THE FACE OF THE DECISION IN WATSON V. STA TE, INFRA, THERE IS NO EXPRESS AND DIRECT CONFLICT WITH A DECISION OF THIS COURT OR OF ANOTHER DISTRICT COURT. THIS COURT SHOULD THEREFORE DECLINE TO

ACCEPT JURISDICTION...........................................................4

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................5

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE..........................................................................6

CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE................................................................6

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES:

Reaves v. State,

485 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 1986) ............................................................................. 1

State v. Enmund,

476 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1985)......................................................................................4

State v. Hegstrom,

401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)................................................................................4, 5

State v. Pinder,

375 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1979)......................................................................................4

Watson v. State,

100 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). ............................................................passim

Watson v. State

392 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)........................................................................ 4

OTHER AUTHORITIES:

Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. ...................................................................... 4 Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv).............................................................................4

11

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

The only facts relevant to this Court in determining whether to accept

jurisdiction are those contained within the opinion of the District Court.'

Respondent, therefore, offers the following as a substitute for Petitioner's

statement of the case and facts.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal's (Fifth District) opinion in Watson v.

State, states:

ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE

GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant, Stephen R. Watson ["Watson"], has filed a motion to enforce this Court's mandate issued pursuant to an opinion of this Court issued in 1981. Watson v. State, 392 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In 1980, Watson had entered a plea and was sentenced on two counts: (I) first degree felony murder, for which he received a life sentence with a minimum mandatory of twenty-five years, and (II) the underlying felony of armed robbery, for which he received a concurrent twenty-five year sentence. On appeal, this Court held that Watson could not be convicted and sentenced both for felony murder and the underlying felony, and we vacated the judgment and sentence for armed robbery. In 2006, Watson filed a rule 3.850 motion to vacate the judgment on Count I, but that motion was denied and affirmed on appeal.

The crux of the current motion is that Watson now claims to be entitled to resentencing as the result of the 1981 vacating of the judgment and sentence on Count II, armed robbery. We deny the motion because the 1981

1 Reaves v. State, 485 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 1986).

1

opinion of this Court and the ensuing mandate vacating the armed robbery conviction were self-executing; without more, the conviction and sentence were eliminated. This Court did not reverse and remand for resentencing because none was required. Our opinion did not affect the conviction and sentence on Count I. Indeed, it was the fact of the conviction and sentence on Count I that, under principles of double jeopardy, required the conviction and sentence on Count II to be vacated. Motion to enforce mandate DENIED. Watson v. State, 100 So. 3d 766, 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Petitioner filed a timely notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court.

2

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download