JAMES A. LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court affirmed the revocation of probation and conviction but remanded for the trial court to specify the exact number of days of presentence incarceration credit in the sentencing order as required by statute.
A sentencing order that grants presentence incarceration credit but fails to specify the exact number of days must be remanded for modification to comply with statutory requirements.
[1] A sentencing order must specify the exact number of days of presentence incarceration credit to which a defendant is entitled under Florida Statutes Section 921.161(1), a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames A. Lee's probation was revoked after he violated its conditions, and he was convicted and sentenced. The trial court granted him credit for time…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order revoking probation and the judgment of conviction entered thereon are affirmed. Sufficient competent evidence was presented below to satisfy the conscience of the court that the defendant James A. Lee violated the conditions of his probation as found by the trial court in the order revoking probation. See Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1974).
In accord with the state’s confession of error, however, it will be necessary to remand the sentencing order under review to the trial court for the purpose of modifying same. The trial court in the said sentencing order gave the defendant James A. Lee credit for “such time as he has been incarcerated prior to imposition of this sentence” but failed to specify the exact number of days which the defendant was being credited with pursuant to Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1981). Upon remand, then, the trial court is directed to specify in the sentencing order the exact number of days of presentence incarceration to which the defendant is entitled as a credit against his sentence under the above statute. The defendant need not be present at this modification proceeding. See Hurst v. State, 379 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); De Stefano v. State, 377 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 635 (Fla.1980).
Affirmed in part; remanded for modification of sentencing order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Menendez v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., Inc., 35 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2010)…te in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.” Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla.1996); see also Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (holding that a liability policy is governed by the law in effect at the time the policy is issued, not the law in effect at the time a claim arises); Hausler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 374 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 2d…
-
Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1996)…with these rules of construction, it is generally accepted that the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract. See Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Ceballos, 440 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and cases cited therein. We cannot agree with the trial court that the 1992 amendment at issue here is a “remedial/procedural” change in the law which falls outside- these well established rules. A review of the 1992 and 198…
-
Bernhine W. Young v. State, 519 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…), Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974), requires proof of a violation sufficient only to satisfy the conscience of the court. Randolph v. State, 292 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 300 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1974); see Lee v. State, 440 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). I cannot agree that every probation violation hearing should be rendered meaningless in determining the propriety of a departure and would hold, to the contrary, that a finding of violation is binding and determinative in the sen…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gideon Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)
- Hurst v. State, 379 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- de Stefano v. State, 377 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)