JOHN MICHAEL RUSSELL, 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 trial court had jurisdiction to consider probation violations alleged to have occurred prior to the probationary term's inception, and that a short preparation time for counsel does not automatically prove ineffectiveness.
John Russell appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction over probation violation…
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
DANAHY, Judge.
John Russell appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. Russell is presently serving a sentence imposed after he was found guilty of probation violations. He maintains that the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider the probation violations because they were alleged to have occurred while Russell was still under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, prior to the inception of the probationary term. We believe that the decision of the supreme court in Stafford v. State, 455 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1984), supports the conclusion that the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the violations.
Russell also alleges that the public defender who represented him at the revocation hearing was ineffective. At best, Russell has shown that counsel had only a short time to prepare for the hearing. This alone does not demonstrate that his subsequent representation was inadequate. See, e.g., Byrd v. State, 243 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
Lastly, Russell claims that, in awarding credit for time served, the trial court shortchanged him nineteen days. The trial court failed to attach sufficient portions of the record to demonstrate that Russell is not entitled to this additional credit. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court with directions either to award Russell the extra nineteen days, or to support its denial with sufficient record excerpts. The order denying postconviction relief is in all other respects affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cason v. State, 604 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ation based on such violation. Stafford v. State, 455 So. 2d 385, 386 (Fla.1984) (approving Martin v. State, 243 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA) (defendant violated probation while in county jail), cert. denied, 247 so.2d 63 (Fla.1971)); Russell v. State, 487 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA) (violation while defendant in custody of Department of Corrections), cause dismissed, 492 So. 2d 1334 (Fla.1986). See also Williamson v. State, 388 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). In our view, where a defendant has allegedly violated…
-
Santiago v. Ryan, 109 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…,” and thus, that section 908.0471 does not apply. Analogizing this case to Martin v. State, 243 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Williamson v. State, 388 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Stafford v. State, 455 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1984); Russell v. State, 487 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) and Hart v. State, 364 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), we reject that claim and hold that the provision does apply when the defendant commits a new crime — here, by way of making threatening phone calls from jail — after the bond…
Authorities Cited
- Vendul Oliver Stafford v. State, 455 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1984)
- Lewis v. Rein, 243 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Byrd v. State, 243 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)