GEORGE BROWN, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1983-03-09
No. 82-1087
BOARDMAN and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
427 So. 2d 821 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 26 cases

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.

Synopsis

George Brown appeals his convictions for second-degree grand theft and resisting arrest with violence. The court affirms his convictions and sentences, but holds that Brown's claim regarding fifteen days of uncredited jail time cannot be resolved on direct appeal because the Department of Corrections, not the trial court, bears responsibility for awarding postsentencing jail time credit.


Holding

Brown is entitled to jail time credit for the fifteen days of postsentencing incarceration under section 921.161(2), Florida Statutes, but the trial court bears no responsibility for granting this credit. The issue cannot be properly raised on direct appeal attacking the judgment and sentence because it is not before the trial court at the time of sentencing. Brown must instead seek a writ of mandamus against the Department of Corrections.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant is entitled to jail time credit for all postconviction and postsentencing incarceration in county jail served prior to transfer to the Department of Correctio…

[2] A sheriff's receipt for prisoner form, certifying the date sentence was imposed and the date of transfer to the Department of Corrections, serves as prima facie evidence…

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“a defendant must receive jail time credit for all postconviction and postsentencing incarceration in county jail that is served prior to being placed in the custody of the Department of Corrections”

Establishes the statutory basis for Brown's entitlement to jail time credit

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Brown was convicted and sentenced on April 13, 1982. He remained incarcerated in county jail for fifteen days following sentencing before being transf…

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.


Opinion of the Court
OTT, Chief Judge.

OTT, Chief Judge.

We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence for second degree grand theft in violation of section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1981), and resisting arrest with violence in violation of section 843.01, Florida Statutes (1981). However, it appears that appellant has been deprived of fifteen days of jail time credit. For the reasons hereafter expressed, we hold that appellant’s deprivation of jail time credit is not a result of error by the trial court and cannot be raised or corrected by this direct appeal.

The fifteen-day period of incarceration for which it appears appellant has not received jail time credit was served in county jail following his conviction and sentencing on April 13,1982, and preceding his transfer to the state correctional institute on April 28, 1982. Under the provisions of section 921.161(2), Florida Statutes (1981), a defendant must receive jail time credit for all postconviction and postsentencing incarceration in county jail that is served prior to being placed in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The statute further provides that upon delivery of the prisoner to the Department of Corrections, the sheriff shall certify in writing, generally on a receipt for prisoner form, the date that the sentence was imposed and the date that the prisoner was delivered to the Department of Corrections. The statute establishes that the receipt for prisoner form, which is statutorily referred to as a certificate, shall serve as prima facie evidence of the facts certified in the form.

An examination of the record discloses that appellant’s receipt for prisoner form specifies that appellant was delivered by the sheriff to the Department of Corrections on April 28, 1982, fifteen days following the imposition of appellant’s sentence. The record further indicates that appellant remained incarcerated in county jail during this fifteen-day interim period.

Accordingly, appellant’s contention that he has been deprived of fifteen days of jail time credit is correct. The text of section 921.161(2) implicitly imposes upon the Department of Corrections, and not the trial court, the responsibility of granting appellant postsentencing jail time credit. Once the trial court imposed its sentence upon appellant and satisfied its burden of granting appellant all presentencing jail time credit that appellant deserved, the trial court’s role ended.

Since appellant’s right to postsentencing jail time credit is not before the trial court at the time of sentencing, the issue is not properly raised on direct appeal by an attack on the judgment and sentence. As noted, however, appellant’s allegation regarding his right to postsentencing jail time credit has merit. The appropriate course for appellant to pursue is to seek a writ of mandamus instructing the Department of Corrections to grant appellant jail time credit for the fifteen days of incarceration in county jail that he served following his sentencing and prior to his transfer to the state correctional institute. See Adams v. Wainwright, 275 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1973).

BOARDMAN and DANAHY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (13 total)

  • Hidalgo v. State, 729 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
    …d pursue his administrative remedies, and then seek a writ of mandamus against the department in the circuit court, if dissatisfied with the outcome. Washington v. State, 662 So. 2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (citation omitted); Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 821, 821-22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We affirm the trial court’s order on this issue. VII. For the reasons stated, the order under review is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a determination whether defendant is entitled to additional cr…
  • Dep't of Corr. v. Mattress, 686 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
    …t for such credit does not affect the legality of the sentence. See Bowles v. State, 647 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Henderson v. State, 632 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Reynolds v. State, 590 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also § 921.161(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); Bland v. State, 664 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Grimes v. State, 657 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Conversely, a claim for presentence jail time credit is a matter for the trial cour…
  • Reynolds v. State, 590 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
    …. Unlike section 921.161(1), which relates to the court’s obligation regarding credit for time before sentencing, section 921.161(2) relates to the Department of Corrections’ obligation regarding credit for time after sentencing. See Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The request for such credit after sentencing does not impact the legality of the sentence which has been imposed, and thus is not a proper claim under rule 3.800(a). In denying the appellant’s motion, the court expressed some c…

Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw