WINFRED CONE, 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.
The court held that the defendant is entitled to credit for time served on both concurrent sentences, but not for presentence jail time.
The defendant elected to be sentenced under guidelines that became effective after his offenses. The trial judge elevated his sentence based on a rule…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.701(d)(14) cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Chief Judge.
The defendant, Winfred Cone, was placed on five years’ probation in January, 1982, for grand theft and uttering a forged instrument. As a condition of that probation, he served one year of incarceration on each charge concurrently. In January, 1984, Cone violated that probation, and it was revoked at a sentencing hearing in September, 1984. Cone elected to be sentenced pursuant to the guidelines, which had become effective October 1, 1983.
The defendant’s score placed him in the second cell range of community control, or a maximum of thirty months’ incarceration. The trial judge elevated this by one cell pursuant to the amendment to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14), which became effective July 1, 1984, and sentenced Cone to three years on each charge.
Cone’s first point on appeal challenges the application of the July amendment on the basis that such violates the ex post facto doctrine. This is without merit. The defendant elected the sentencing guidelines, which were not in effect in any form at the time of his offenses. Therefore, he was bound by those guidelines as they were in effect at the time of sentencing in September, 1984.
The second point on appeal is that the trial court applied the one-year credit for the time served as a condition of probation to only one of the two three-year sentences. We hold that credit must be given on both counts for time served, since the time being served was running concurrently on both counts. Brown v. State, 460 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). This would not be true of presentence jail time. See Amlotte v. State, 435 So. 2d 249 (Pla. 5th DCA 1983), approved, 456 So. 2d 448 (Fla.1984).
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for correction of sentence to provide one year of credit to be given on each count.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Amlotte v. State, 456 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1984)
- Hunter v. State, 435 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Brown v. State, 460 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)