F.S. 921.18 on Google Scholar

F.S. 921.18 on Casetext

Amendments to 921.18

The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)

Chapter 921
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 921.18 Florida Statutes and Case Law
921.18 Sentence for indeterminate period for noncapital felony.The court in its discretion may sentence a defendant convicted of a noncapital felony to the custody of the Department of Corrections for an indeterminate period of 6 months to a maximum period of imprisonment. The maximum sentence may be less than the maximum prescribed by law, but shall not be less than the minimum, if any, prescribed for the offense. After July 1, 1990, the court shall consider sentencing a defendant to serve his or her sentence in a county residential probation center facility as described in s. 951.23 for the county residential probation program as provided in s. 951.231 only if the defendant has not been previously convicted of a felony or twice convicted of a misdemeanor and the existing local facility has available capacity. This section shall not apply to sentences imposed under s. 775.084 or any other statute providing for punishment of habitual criminals.
History.ss. 2, 7-11, ch. 57-366; s. 1, ch. 59-109; s. 18, ch. 61-530; s. 1, ch. 63-306; ss. 19, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 126, ch. 70-339; s. 1, ch. 70-441; s. 15, ch. 77-120; s. 26, ch. 79-3; s. 74, ch. 88-122; s. 6, ch. 91-225; s. 1545, ch. 97-102.
Note.Section 126, ch. 70-339, incorporated portions of former s. 921.23 into s. 921.18.

Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: March 07, 2023
F.S. 921.18 on Google Scholar

F.S. 921.18 on Casetext

Amendments to 921.18

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 921.18
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 921.18.

Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S921.18
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

Current data shows no reason a civil citation or a suspension or revocation of license should have been issued under Florida Statute 921.18.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

  1. Adams v. Culver

    111 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1959)   Cited 96 times
    As shown therein, an information was filed against petitioner charging that, on April 22, 1958, he "unlawfully did commit a lewd and lascivious act before * * *, a female, aged 11 years, by exhibiting a lewd and pornographic picture in the presence of said minor female, without intent to commit rape." The petitioner plead guilty to the charge, judgment was entered, and he was sentenced under our "indeterminate sentence" statute, § 921.18, Fla. Stat. 1957, F.S.A., to a term of six months to twenty-five years in the state prison. As the basis for his claim of unlawful detention the petitioner contends, in substance, that the information filed against him was insufficient to charge a crime against him under any valid law of this state; and that, even if it was sufficient, the sentence of six months to twenty-five years was excessive. In the return to the writ filed by the Attorney General on behalf of the respondent, it is asserted that the petitioner was correctly charged with a violation of § 800.04, Fla. Stat. 1957, F.S.A.; it is conceded, however, that the sentence is excessive.
  2. Fulford v. Blackburn

    593 F.2d 17 (5th Cir. 1979)   Cited 1 times
    Fla.Stat. § 921.18 (1961), provided:
    PAGE 19
  3. Langdon v. State

    330 So. 2d 804 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 3 times
    Counsel has also pointed out that the trial judge may not have been aware that he could have sentenced the appellant to an indeterminate sentence, pursuant to § 921.18, Fla. Stat. It is not clear from the record whether this is the actual case. However, if it is, this is a matter that may be corrected by the trial court upon a motion to mitigate filed subsequent to the mandate of this court, pursuant to Rule 3.800 (b), RCrP.
    PAGE 805
  4. State v. Dull

    249 So. 2d 758 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 2 times
    F.S. § 921.18, F.S.A.
    PAGE 760
  5. Bell v. State

    382 So. 2d 107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 7 times
    The findings of fact to support the enhanced penalty need not be in writing but must be on the record in order to afford review. King v. State, 369 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Upon resentencing, the trial judge cannot sentence appellant to an indeterminate sentence, as he did before, because the legislature has disallowed such a sentence in the punishment of habitual criminals. Fla. Stat. 921.18 (1979).
    PAGE 109
  6. Carnley v. Cochran

    118 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1960)   Cited 4 times
    Petitioner assaults his original sentence on the ground that because it was indeterminate it violated the provisions of Section 8, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution, which prohibits "indefinite imprisonment." The sentence imposed by the trial judge in the forgery matter complied strictly with the provisions of Section 921.18, Florida Statutes, 1957 F.S.A. By Chapter 57-366, Laws of Florida, 1957, the Florida Legislature authorized the imposition of a sentence for an indeterminate period upon conviction for noncapital felonies. Unless for some reason this statute can be held to be violative of the organic law, the sentence imposed pursuant to the forgery conviction must be sustained.
    PAGE 631
  7. Johnson v. State

    399 So. 2d 108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 1 times
    The evidence at trial indicated one of two robbers actually possessed a firearm. The evidence wholly failed to identify Johnson as the robber possessing the gun. The jury was instructed on an aider and abettor theory and subsequently returned a verdict of guilty as charged. In Earnest v. State, 351 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1977), the court held that the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment did not apply to persons convicted of armed robbery who had only vicarious possession of the firearm, construing Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1975). Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1979), applicable here, has identical provisions. Although this case is factually distinguishable from Earnest in that the evidence at trial affirmatively showed Earnest had only vicarious possession, we think the principle of Earnest applies in this factual situation where no evidence was presented showing appellant actually possessed the firearm and the jury was instructed on an aider and abettor theory. Thus, under these circumstances, although the evidence was clearly sufficient to support the crimes charged, neither the evidence nor the verdict support imposition of the three-year mandatory…
  8. Lee v. State

    404 So. 2d 860 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 2 times
    Lee appeals an order that attempted to correct two illegal "split" sentences — of five years' probation conditioned on two years' incarceration — by imposing concurrent indeterminate sentences of two to five years. Imposition of a two-year minimum term for an indeterminate sentence was error, because section 921.18, Fla. Stat. (1979), limits the minimum term in such cases to six months. Cox v. State, 344 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), cert. den., 354 So.2d 979 (Fla. 1977). Under Villery v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 396 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 1981), the corrected sentences are otherwise proper. Therefore, the sentences are AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. The case is REMANDED for correction of the sentences by imposing a minimum term of six months. Appellant need not be present for correction of the sentences.
  9. Butler v. State

    412 So. 2d 917 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 1 times
    Section 921.18, Florida Statutes (1979), authorizing indeterminate sentences, is limited in application to noncapital felonies. The imposition of an indeterminate sentence upon a misdemeanor conviction constitutes fundamental error because this type of sentence is not authorized by any statutory authority to be imposed as punishment for a misdemeanor. As fundamental error, such an unauthorized sentence is reviewable by appeal without a showing of harm and without being first raised in the trial court.