Case Name: Michael BEDFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-05-12
Citations: 617 So. 2d 1134
Docket Number: No. 92-2609
Parties: Michael BEDFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: HERSEY, J., concurs,
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 617
Pages: 1134–1136

Head Matter:
Michael BEDFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 92-2609.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 12, 1993.
Michael Bedford, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge.
Appellant's death sentence for first degree murder was vacated, Bedford v. State, 589 So.2d 245 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1773, 118 L.Ed.2d 432 (1992), and upon remand he was resentenced on the murder count and on the separate kidnapping count. He asserts here, on appeal from denial of a motion under 3.800, Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the consecutive life sentence which he received on the separate count of kidnapping was illegal because the court, as it did in resentencing on the murder conviction, imposed a sentence "without possibility of parole for twenty-five years". We affirm under the doctrine of law of the case.
Upon conviction appellant was sentenced to death on the murder count and sentenced to a consecutive life sentence "without possibility of parole" on the kidnapping count. The supreme court affirmed the convictions on both counts as well as the sentence for kidnapping. Bedford v. State, 589 So.2d 245 (Fla.1991), cert. denied. The court explicitly recognized that the sentence imposed upon appellant for the kidnapping count was a consecutive life sentence without possibility of parole. Id. 249. Because the validity of the sentence which appellant received on the kidnapping count has been approved by the supreme court we are not at liberty to disturb it.
While it is true that the sentence on the kidnapping count approved by the supreme court was for a consecutive life sentence without possibility of parole, whereas the sentence ultimately imposed by the trial court upon resentencing was for a consecutive life sentence without possibility of parole for twenty-five years, the modification is one which benefits rather than harms appellant.
Affirmed.
HERSEY, J., concurs,
ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.