JOHN W. RALSTON, JR., 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.
Trial court must reconsider whether to award jail-time credit for appellant's Pennsylvania incarceration because such credit applies to both concurrent sentences, not just one as the trial judge believed.
A trial court has inherent discretionary authority to award credit for time spent incarcerated in another state while awaiting transfer, and such credit applies to all concurrent sentences.
[1] Credit for time incarcerated in another state while awaiting transfer applies to all concurrent sentences, not merely one.
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 intelligenceAppellant was incarcerated in a Pennsylvania jail while awaiting transfer to Florida to serve concurrent sentences.…
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 Sentencing Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
The trial court had inherent discretionary authority to award credit for the time the appellant spent incarcerated in a Pennsylvania jail while awaiting transfer to Florida. Kronz v. State, 462 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1985). Although the record before us suggests that the trial judge was aware that he had the authority to award such credit,'it also indicates that his decision not to exercise his discretion in the matter was based on his belief that any such jail time credit awarded would apply to but one of the appellant’s two concurrent sentences, and that an award of the credit would therefore not alter the period of time appellant will ultimately have to spend in prison.
However, under Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986) (a case not yet decided at the time the trial judge ruled on the issue presented here) credit for the time appellant was incarcerated in Pennsylvania will apply to both of the concurrent sentences herein reviewed, if the trial judge concludes that the credit should be awarded at all.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial judge to give him an opportunity to exercise his discretionary authority to award credit for the time appellant served in the Pennsylvania jail.
BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1986)
- Kronz v. State, 462 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1985)