STEVEN WAYNE PEARSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1989-02-22
No. 88-1309
SMITH, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
538 So. 2d 1349 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1989) Caution
Cited by 28 cases

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.

Synopsis

Steven Pearson appeals the denial of his Rule 3.800 motion challenging jail-time credit on concurrent sentences imposed across two counties. The court reverses, holding that when a defendant receives jail-time credit on concurrent sentences, all concurrent sentences must reflect credit for time served, regardless of whether they originate from different counties.


Holding

Yes. When sentences run concurrently and a defendant receives presentence jail-time credit on one sentence, those concurrent sentences must also reflect credit for the time served, regardless of whether they emanate from different counties.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant held in county jail on new charges is entitled to jail time credit on concurrent sentences imposed by another county when a warrant from that county was lodge…

[2] Jail time credit awarded on a sentence to be served concurrently must also be reflected on other sentences running concurrently, regardless of whether the sentences origi…

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

Key Quotes

“when a defendant receives presentence jail-time credit on a sentence that is to run concurrently with other sentences, those sentences must also reflect the credit for time served”

Statement of the Daniels holding that the court applies to this case

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Pearson was placed on probation on June 8, 1987 for grand theft and battery in Columbia County. He was subsequently arrested for new offenses in Hamil…

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.


Opinion of the Court
NIMMONS, Judge.

NIMMONS, Judge.

Appellant appeals from summary denial of his Rule 3.800 motion in which appellant complains that the sentences imposed failed to award the amount of jail time credit to which he was legally entitled. We agree and reverse.

Appellant was originally placed on probation on June 8, 1987 on the subject charges (grand theft and battery) in Columbia County.1 Thereafter, he was arrested for new offenses committed in Hamilton County where he was held in the county jail on those new charges.

Pursuant to an affidavit executed on June 26, 1987, charging the appellant with a violation of probation, a warrant was issued therefor. By letter dated July 30, 1987, the Sheriff of Colum-, bia County forwarded the probation violation warrant to the Sheriff of Hamilton County advising the latter to take appellant into custody and to hold him without bond for Columbia County. A copy of such letter was attached to appellant’s subject 3.800 motion and bears the mark of a rubber stamp indicating that the letter was received by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s office on August 3, 1987. The letter also bears the handwritten notation: “Please put in Jail File.” Appellant claims to have been continuously held in the Hamilton County Jail on both the new charges as well as the “hold” from Columbia County until he was sentenced on the Hamilton County cases.2 Thereafter, he was transported to Columbia County for disposition of the probation violation charge.

On November 16, 1987, the Columbia County Circuit Court revoked probation as to both counts and imposed sentences of incarceration as to both offenses, to run concurrent with each other and concurrent with the above referred Hamilton County sentence. On the Columbia County sentences, appellant was given only two days jail credit, apparently representing the two days on which the appellant was held in the Columbia County Jail immediately preceding the revocation and sentencing. Although appellant was given credit on the Hamilton County sentences for the time spent in the Hamilton County Jail, he claims he was also entitled to be credited for that jail time on his subsequent Columbia County sentences.

In Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986), the Florida Supreme Court held that when a defendant receives presentence 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 state asserts that the Daniels holding should not be applied to a situation such as this where the multiple sentences emanate from different counties.

We disagree. In a case such as this, where the Columbia County warrant was transmitted to the Hamilton County Sheriff who was holding the defendant in the county jail, the defendant must be deemed to have been in custody under the warrants from both counties, at least for purposes of entitlement to jail credit on concurrent sentencing. Any other conclusion would be inconsistent with the rationale of Daniels.

We, therefore, reverse and remand for proceedings to determine, consistent with this opinion, the jail-time credit to which the appellant is entitled and for appropriate amendment to the subject sentences so as to reflect such credit.

SMITH, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur. . The facts set forth in this opinion are based upon the allegations of appellant’s motion and the attachments thereto.

. We are unable to determine from the record before us the date on which he was sentenced in Hamilton County.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (14 total)

  • Gethers v. State, 838 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2003)
    …County arrest warrant had been transmitted. The First District held: [F]rom the time a warrant is transmitted or issued to another county and that county incarcerates the defendant on unrelated charges, the defendant, as in [*508] Pearson v. State, 538 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), is deemed to be in custody on the warrants from both counties and therefore entitled to jail credit on concurrent sentencing. Travis, 724 So. 2d at 120. Unlike the situation in this case where St. Lucie County issued a detainer…
  • Price v. State, 598 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
    …nt case, the defendant was sentenced in Volusia County on or about March 13, 1991 to a 5 year sentence to run concurrent with the 5 year sentence imposed in Alachua County on February 26, 1991 in which 129 days credit was given. In Pearson v. State, 538 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), the court addressed a similar situation. The defendant in Pearson was on probation for a Columbia County conviction when he committed a new offense in Hamilton County. When the defendant was incarcerated in Hamilton County, Colu…
  • Travis v. State, 724 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
    …he additional 101 days of jail credit towards his Escambia sentences and argues that because his Escambia and Santa Rosa sentences were concurrent, pursuant to Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986) and this court’s opinion in Pearson v. State, 538 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), he was entitled to such credit. The trial court denied Travis’ claim on grounds he was not entitled to the credit because he had not been formally arrested on the Escambia County charges until he was released from the Santa Rosa…

Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw