WILLIAM K. NICHOLSON, 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.
Nicholson appealed a trial court's order that credited his jail time toward only one of two concurrent sentences. The Florida appellate court held that Section 921.161(1) requires jail-time credit to be applied to all concurrent sentences, not just one.
Section 921.161(1) requires that when a defendant receives pre-sentence jail-time credit on a sentence running concurrently with other sentences, that credit must be applied to all concurrent sentences.
[1] A defendant must be credited on each concurrent sentence with all time spent in county jail awaiting sentencing.
[2] When pre-sentence jail time credit is applied to one concurrent sentence, all other concurrent sentences must also reflect that credit.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“when, pursuant to section 921.161(1), a defendant receives pre-sentence jail-time credit on a sentence that is to run concurrently with other sentences, those sentences must also reflect the credit for time served”
The controlling legal principle from Daniels v. State establishing that jail-time credit applies to all concurrent sentences
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 18, 1985, Nicholson pled guilty to probation violations and was sentenced to two years on each of two charges, with the sentences running c…
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 Concurrent Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Nicholson seeks review of an order which denied his motion to have full jail time credited to both of his concurrent sentences. The trial court credited full jail time on one concurrent sentence, but applied no jail time credit to the other concurrent sentence. The issue on this appeal is whether Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes1 requires that a defendant shall be credited on each concurrent sentence with all of the time spent in the county jail awaiting sentence. We conclude that it does, and reverse the ruling of the trial court.
On January 18, 1985, Nicholson pled guilty to probation violations. Probation was revoked and Nicholson was sentenced to serve two years on each charge, the two-year sentences to run concurrently, but to run consecutively to the sentence he was then serving. Our examination of the sparse record in this case indicates that Nicholson was credited as to Case No. 83-5937 with seven months and three days credit for county jail time served, but no county jail time was credited to Case No. 83-5745. The sentence imposed in Case No. 83-5745 runs concurrently with the sentence imposed in Case No. 83-5937.
We find the issue in this appeal is controlled by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986). In Daniels the court held that “when, pursuant to section 921.161(1), a defendant receives pre-sentence jail-time credit on a sentence that is to run concurrently with other sentences, those sentences must also reflect the credit for time served.” (Emphasis in the original.) See also Vasquez v. State, 478 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Kinney v. State, 458 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Accordingly, the trial court’s order is reversed and remanded with directions to apply full jail-time credit to both concurrent sentences.
ERVIN, WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur. . s.921.161(1), Fla.Stat. (1983), provides:
(1) A sentence of imprisonment shall not begin to run before the date it is imposed, but the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time he spent in the county jail before sentencing. The credit must be for a specified period of time and shall be provided for in the sentence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitney v. State, 493 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…tiple charges was answered in the affirmative in Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986). See also Vasquez v. State, 478 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) petition for review dismissed State v. Vasquez, 488 So. 2d 831 (Fla.1986); Nicholson v. State, 492 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). However, we find that, under the circumstances of this case, Whitney is not entitled to have his jail-time credit applied equally to the concurrent sentences imposed below by the trial court. In Yohn v. State, 461 So. 2d 263 (F…
Authorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1986)
- Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 478 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Kinney v. State, 458 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)