BRIAN M. CHIPMAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The appellate court reviewed a defendant's sentence and a denial of his motion to withdraw pleas. The court affirmed the denial of the motion but reversed the sentence, remanding for correction regarding credit for time served.
The court held that Chipman is entitled to credit for time served from the original sentencing to resentencing. The court also held that the dismissal of the motion to withdraw pleas was barred by the law of the case doctrine.
[1] When a defendant is resentenced due to an illegality in the original sentence, the defendant is entitled to credit for time served from the date of the original sentencin…
[2] The law of the case doctrine bars reconsideration of an issue on a subsequent appeal when that issue has already been decided and affirmed in a prior appeal in the same c…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Where a defendant is resentenced due to an illegality in the original sentence, the new sentence typically is measured from the date of the original sentence.”
Establishes the principle for calculating credit for time served upon resentencing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrian Chipman appealed his sentence, arguing the trial court erred by not awarding credit for time served prior to resentencing. He also appealed an o…
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 Per Curiam Affirmance cases and more on FLexlaw
ATKINSON, Judge. Brian Chipman appeals his sentence on the grounds that the trial court erred in failing to award him credit for time served prior to resentencing. He also
- 2 - appeals the trial court’s February 16, 2018, order dismissing his motion to withdraw pleas as untimely.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Chipman argues, and the State concedes, that he is entitled to credit for the time he spent in prison from the date of the original sentencing to the date of resentencing. See Peters v. State, 198 So. 3d 992, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("Where a defendant is resentenced due to an illegality in the original sentence, the new sentence typically is measured from the date of the original sentence.").
Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to correct the sentencing order to reflect Chipman's entitlement to credit for time served since the date of the original sentencing. See Beich v. State, 93 So. 3d 407, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (reversing and remanding for the court to check the box indicating the defendant's entitlement to prison credit); Andrews v. State, 822 So. 2d 540, 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (same).
Chipman's claim regarding the trial court's February 16, 2018, order is barred by the law of the case doctrine because this court has already affirmed it on appeal. See Chipman v. State, 269 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); see also R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Howard, 286 So. 3d 936, 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (holding that a per curiam affirmance established law of the case); McCray v. State, 230 So. 3d 495, 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("The law of the case doctrine requires 'that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.' " (quoting Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001))); RTM Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. G/W Riverwalk, LLC, 893 So. 2d 583, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Canady, J., concurring) (explaining that even though a previous appellate decision in the case "was a per
- 3 - curiam affirmance without opinion," it established the law of the case on the matter in question). Thus, we affirm on this issue. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. KHOUZAM, C.J., and KELLY, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001)
- RTM Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. G/W Riverwalk, LLC, 893 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Beich v. State, 93 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Peters v. State, 198 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Chipman v. State, 269 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)