MICHAEL EVERETTE BROOKS, 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.
A defendant is not entitled to duplicate jail time credit for time spent in county jail while already serving a federal sentence.
Brooks, while serving a federal sentence, was removed to county jail to answer Florida charges. He was convicted and sentenced on state charges and re…
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 Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Brooks appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, contending that his sentence should be corrected to include credit for time spent in county jail prior to sentencing. We disagree and affirm.
While serving a federal prison term, Brooks was removed to Escambia County to answer Florida charges. He was convicted and sentenced on the state charges and was transferred back to federal prison. Essentially, Brooks argues that Section 921.-161(1), Florida Statutes (1975)1 required the trial judge to give him credit for the time he spent in the Escambia County jail awaiting sentence.
Section 921.161(1) insures that a prisoner will not lose credit for time he spent in jail before sentencing. However, it does not bestow duplicate jail time credit. See generally, Miller v. State, 297 So. 2d 36, 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
Here, Brooks was serving a federal sentence during his stay in county jail, and he does not assert that he will be denied jail time credit by federal authorities. Because Brooks apparently received his federal jail time credit, the trial judge below was not required to give him duplicate credit toward his Florida sentence. See Bruner v. State, 398 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Watson v. State, 340 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1977). See also, Wingfield v. Page, 422 P. 2d 229 (Okl.Cr.App.1966); Southard v. State, 363 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Brooks additionally alleges that he lost eligibility for federal “gain time” during his Escambia County incarceration. However, we agree with the trial judge that Brooks has failed to demonstrate how this affects his state sentence. Certainly, loss of eligibility for federal gain time does not impact on Section 921.161(1).
Affirmed.
MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur. . “... the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time he spent in the county jail before sentence.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pecor v. State, 490 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…error has been shown in the calculation of the credit received by the defendant for time served. The trial court’s order on the defendant’s motion to correct sentence is affirmed. Miller v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Brooks v. State, 421 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). With respect to the assessment of costs against the appellant, this cause is reversed in part for failure to give notice to the defendant. Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). The state may move for the imposition of cos…
Authorities Cited
- Winston v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Miller v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- DeWayne Lee Bruner v. State, 398 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Nania v. Port Salerno Realty, Inc., 363 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Watson v. State, 340 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)