JAMES MICHAEL KNIGHT, 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.
Appellant is entitled to jail time credit for time awaiting disposition in one case but not for the same period in a consecutive sentence, as credit applies only to the sentence for which it was imposed, not to each consecutive sentence.
A defendant is entitled to jail time credit only against the sentence for which the credit was awarded, not against each consecutive sentence.
[1] A defendant sentenced to consecutive sentences is entitled to jail time credit only against the sentence for which the credit was awarded, not against each consecutive se…
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 intelligenceKnight was sentenced to five years on a new charge in Case No. 82-1244-CF-A on September 20, 1982, receiving 168 days of jail time credit. His probati…
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 Motion For Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Chief Judge.
Appellant appeals an order granting in part and denying in part his motion to allow credit for jail time. We requested the state to file a brief in this cause pursuant to Toler v. State, 493 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The state has conceded that appellant is entitled to jail time credit for the time spent in jail awaiting disposition of the charges against him in Case No. 80-2723-CF and his sentence. Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1979). However, appellant is not entitled to 158 days of jail time credit for the period of time he spent in jail from April 20, 1982 until September 24, 1982. Appellant had been sentenced to five years on September 20,1982, on a new substantive charge in Case No. 82-1244-CF-A and given 168 days credit for jail time against the sentence on the substantive offense. His sentence for violating his probation in Case No. 80-2723-CF was designated to run consecutively to his sentence in Case No. 82-1244-CF-A. Appellant is not entitled to credit on each of his consecutive sentences but, rather, only to credit for the time served against the sentence in Case No. 82-1244-CF-A. Hipp v. State, 509 So. 2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Miller v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed in part, reversed in part and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Toler v. State, 493 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Winston v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Miller v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Hipp v. State, 509 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)