ARTHUR O'DERRELL FRANKLIN, 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.
Arthur Franklin was convicted of five felony offenses and sentenced multiple times. After two prior reversals due to procedural defects in sentencing (failure to comply with juvenile sentencing requirements under Fla. Stat. § 39.111(6)), a third sentencing hearing was held. The court affirms the sentences but remands to correct the jail credit calculation, as Franklin is entitled to credit for time served through the latest sentencing date.
The trial court's sentences are affirmed, but the case is remanded for correction of jail credit. Franklin is entitled to the full amount of jail credit through the date of the last sentencings, and since all sentences are concurrent, the correct credit amount must be specified in each sentence.
[1] A trial court must provide a written statement of reasons justifying the imposition of adult sanctions upon a juvenile, as required by statute.
[2] A defendant is entitled to jail credit for the full amount of time served through the date of the last sentencing.
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“Appellant is entitled to have the full amount of jail credit through the date of the last sentencings specified in his sentences.”
Establishes the core holding that jail credit must be calculated through the date of the final sentencing, not an earlier sentencing date.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFranklin was convicted of five felony offenses and initially sentenced to concurrent adult sentences with 309 days of jail credit. After the first sen…
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
NIMMONS, Judge.
We affirm the judgments and sentences but remand for correction of the amount of credit for time served.
Appellant was initially convicted and sentenced for the commission of five felony offenses. In Franklin v. State, 476 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the sentences were vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing because of the trial court’s failure to comply with the requirements of Section 39.111(6), Florida Statutes, relating to the imposition of adult sentences upon juveniles.
A second sentencing hearing was conducted at which the trial court imposed the same concurrent adult sentences upon appellant, each sentence reflecting two years and 171 days credit.1 In Franklin v. State, 498 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the sentences were again reversed and the case remanded for resentencing because the record did not contain a written statement of reasons justifying the imposition of adult sanctions as required by Section 39.111(6).
A third sentencing hearing was held January 30, 1987. The same concurrent adult sentences were imposed, each sentence reflecting the same amount of credit as was reflected in the second round of sentences, namely, two years and 171 days. The trial judge entered an order setting forth his reasons justifying the imposition of adult sanctions in accordance with the requirements of Section 39.111(6).
Although more than a year passed between the second and the third round of sentences, the latter sentences provide for the same amount of jail credit as was provided for in the second round of sentences. Appellant is entitled to have the full amount of jail credit through the date of the last sentencings specified in his sentences. See Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1985), and Marshall v. State, 310 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Further, since all of the sentences are concurrent, the full amount of credit must be specified with respect to each sentence. Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986).
Accordingly, this case is remanded with directions that the sentences be amended to provide for the correct amount of credit for jail time served by the appellant.
REMANDED.
MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur. . In the original sentences, the defendant was allowed 309 days jail credit. The additional credit provided for in the second round of sentences took into account the time served between the original sentences and the second round.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kitchen v. State, 20 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…the county jail time. The state concedes that a prisoner is entitled to credit for jail time spent prior to resentencing. See Smith v. State, 691 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Brown v. State, 584 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Franklin v. State, 515 So. 2d 400, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In accordance with the statute, the trial court must specifically [*977] state that time in the sentence. The trial court’s mere reference to ALL DOC CREDIT does not include the time spent in county jail prior to resentenci…
-
Williams v. State, 588 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the judgments and sentences but remand with directions that the sentences be amended to provide for the correct amount of credit for jail time served by appellant. Franklin v. State, 515 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).1 ERVIN, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . It appears from the record that appellant’s sentence, imposed pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987), may be in violation of the holding in Barnes v. State, 576 So.…
-
Moening v. State, 643 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…this point, the state concedes error. They admit that Moening should receive at least 10½ months credit for time served. Brown v. State, 584 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); McCray v. State, 517 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Franklin v. State, 515 So. 2d 400, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In addition to the 10½ months credit for time served in state custody, Moening seeks to obtain credit for the one year he served on control release, CRD,3 after being released from the custody of the DOC and while awaiting…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1986)
- Franklin v. State, 476 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Marshall v. State, 310 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Franklin v. State, 498 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Goff v. State, 498 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)