WALTER H. CARY, III, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Walter Cary appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming entitlement to 192 days of jail credit rather than 178 days awarded. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the additional jail credit claim because the basis for denial—an alleged stipulation by counsel—did not constitute a clear and knowing waiver, and remanded for reconsideration.
The court held that although a defendant may waive entitlement to jail credit, a clear and knowing waiver must be demonstrated in the record to refute a later claim for additional credit. The trial court improperly denied the claim based on counsel's stipulation without establishing a clear and knowing waiver, making the resulting sentence potentially illegal.
[1] A trial court's denial of a claim for jail credit is improper if based on an unsubstantiated stipulation by counsel.
[2] A waiver of jail credit must be clear and knowing to be valid against a subsequent claim for additional credit.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although an accused may waive his entitlement to jail credit when entering a plea, the record must demonstrate a clear and knowing waiver of jail credit in order to refute a later claim for additional credit.”
Establishes the legal standard that jail credit waivers must be clear and knowing to be valid.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCary was sentenced and awarded 178 days of jail credit. He filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion seeking 192 days of jail credit. The trial court denied the mo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
[*424] PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because the trial court denied one of the appellant’s claims for jail credit on an improper basis, we reverse the trial court’s denial of this claim and remand this case to the trial court for further consideration of the claim, but we otherwise affirm the order under review.
The appellant alleges that he is entitled to 192 days of Clay County jail credit rather than the 178 days of jail credit awarded at sentencing.
The trial court denied the appellant’s motion for additional jail credit, concluding that the appellant’s counsel had stipulated at sentencing that 178 days was the correct amount of jail credit. Although an accused may waive his entitlement to jail credit when entering a plea, the record must demonstrate a clear and knowing waiver of jail credit in order to refute a later claim for additional credit. See Murphy v. State, 930 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In the absence of such a waiver, the resulting sentence is illegal. See Haines v. State, 851 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
The record in the instant ease does not establish that the appellant clearly and knowingly waived his entitlement to additional credit; thus, the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s claim on this basis was improper.
The trial court’s denial of the appellant’s claim for additional Clay County jail credit is accordingly reversed and this case is remanded for reconsideration of the claim. Upon remand, the trial court should review the trial court records in the appellant’s case to determine whether these records “demonstrate on their face an entitlement” to the requested jail credit, as they must before credit for time served may be granted under rule 3.800(a). If the trial court records demonstrate an entitlement to relief, the additional jail credit should be awarded. If they do not, the claim should be denied.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
ALLEN, PADOVANO, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Haines v. State, 851 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Murphy v. State, 930 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)