ROBERT G. DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1989-05-19
No. 89-00963
SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
543 So. 2d 437 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1989)

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

Robert Davis appeals the denial of his motion to correct his sentence, challenging the trial court's refusal to award him additional jail-time credit. The court reverses, holding that Davis is entitled to credit for 173 days of jail time served in 1987 against both his 1981 and 1987 felony sentences, as he was incarcerated at the same time for both offenses.


Holding

The court holds that whenever a defendant receives presentence jail-time credit on one of several concurrent sentences, the remaining sentences must also reflect credit for time served. Davis is entitled to credit the 173 days against both the 1981 and 1987 charges.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant is entitled to presentence jail-time credit on all concurrent sentences when credit is awarded on one of the concurrent sentences.

[2] When a defendant is incarcerated at the same time for more than one offense, all concurrent sentences must reflect credit for the time served.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

“whenever a defendant receives presentence jail-time credit on one of several concurrent sentences, the remaining sentences must also reflect the credit for time served”

Establishes the controlling legal rule from Daniels v. State requiring equal application of jail-time credit across concurrent sentences

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

In 1981, Davis was arrested for a felony and spent 42 days in jail before receiving probation. In 1987, he was arrested on a separate felony charge th…

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
PER CURIAM.

[*438] PER CURIAM.

Robert Davis appeals the denial of his motion to correct sentence. We reverse.

In 1981 Davis was arrested for a felony offense and spent 42 days in jail awaiting sentencing. Eventually he received probation for that offense. Then, in 1987, he was arrested on a separate felony charge which also constituted a violation of his ongoing probation. Davis spent another 173 days in jail before receiving concurrent sentences for the 1981 and 1987 felony charges. The court properly awarded only 173 days credit against the 1987 offense. See Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). As to the 1981 offense, the court credited Davis with only the 42 days served prior to the original imposition of probation. Davis argues that he should receive credit for the 42 days plus 173 days with respect to the 1981 charge.

We believe this situation is controlled by Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986), wherein the supreme court held that whenever a defendant receives presentence jail-time credit on one of several concurrent sentences, the remaining sentences must also reflect the credit for time served. In Keene, supra, which like the present case involved a violation of felony probation, this court interpreted Daniels as requiring equal credit whenever the defendant is “in jail at the same time for more than one crime.” 500 So. 2d at 594. In essence Davis claims that his stint in the county jail in 1987 was attributable both to the new felony arrest and to the fact his arrest represented a violation of probation. Unless the files and records in this case demonstrate otherwise, Davis is entitled to the extra credit.

Reversed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw