LUIS A. PACHECO, 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.
Luis Pacheco appealed the summary denial of his motion for jail time credit, claiming entitlement to 1,222 days of credit against his 15-year sentence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of additional credit but reversed and remanded due to a typographical error in the order, which stated 850 days instead of the 950 days actually credited.
The court affirmed the denial of additional jail time credit beyond the 950 days already awarded, as Pacheco failed to demonstrate entitlement to credit for time attributable to an unrelated foreign charge and failed to establish entitlement to gain time credit. The court reversed and remanded to correct the typographical error in the order.
[1] A defendant seeking correction of a sentence bears the burden of demonstrating why the sentence requires correction.
[2] A defendant is not entitled to jail time credit for time served solely on an unrelated foreign charge.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a defendant seeking correction of a sentence bears the burden of demonstrating why the sentence requires correction”
Establishes the standard that Pacheco must meet to obtain jail time credit adjustment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1984, Pacheco was sentenced to 15 years in prison and initially awarded credit for 950 days served in jail. He subsequently filed a motion seeking …
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 Gain Time Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Luis Pacheco appeals the summary denial of his “motion for jail time credit.” We affirm in part and reverse in part. In 1984 Pacheco was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. At that time he was awarded credit against the sentence for 950 days served in jail. The motion demands credit for 1222 days, relying partly upon the supreme court’s decision in State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla.1989). The trial court entered an order stating that Pacheco was entitled to, and received, credit for 850 days.
We reiterate that a defendant seeking correction of a sentence bears the burden of demonstrating why the sentence requires correction. Wilson v. State, 531 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Pacheco’s motion does not provide a sufficient factual basis for his claim to 1222 days’ credit. While he does indicate that he was incarcerated in county jails “from April 1, 1981, to September 26, 1983, and from January 20, 1984, to November 27, 1984,” it appears some of this time was spent in Dade County and involved a “Dade County case.” While Pacheco might be entitled to credit for time served in one jurisdiction while being held for another; Radley v. State, 372 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); he would not be entitled to credit for jail time attributable solely to an unrelated foreign charge. See, e.g., Monroe v. State, 533 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Sims v. State, 441 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
To the extent Pacheco seeks credit for gain time, he asserts only that the present sentence was “imposed after revocation of probation which was part of [a] probationary split sentence.” Neither specific dates nor a precise amount of gain time is provided. Furthermore, the judgment and sentence attached to the trial court’s order suggest that, in fact, the original incarceration was for one count of a two-count information, followed by probation for the second count. Under these circumstances Green would not entitle Pacheco to credit for gain time because none was awarded with respect to the second offense. Harris v. State, 557 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
We do remand for correction of an apparent typographical error. We find no basis in the record for the 850-day figure specified in the order under review, and the documents attached to the order confirm Pacheco’s assertion that he was credited for 950 days. We also note that the order indicates Pacheco’s motion was “granted” despite the fact the court refused to award him additional credit-time.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)…titled to credit for time served on the first conviction after the revocation of probation for the second conviction. Accord Sylvester v. State, 572 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ford v. State, 572 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Pacheco v. State, 565 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1991); Harris v. State, 557 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); State v. Folsom, 552 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); State v. Rodgers, 540 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). However, the court expresse…
-
State v. Tripp, 591 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ant’s sentence imposed after a revocation of probation. It argues that the trial court improperly awarded jail credit to the defendant for time that he had served on a separate conviction. We agree. Consistent with our decisions in Pacheco v. State, 565 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), review denied, 576 [*1056] So. 2d 289 (Fla.1991), and Harris v. State, 557 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), we reverse the sentence and remand for resen-tencing without jail credit for time served on the separate conviction. Our d…
-
Cook v. State, 635 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…matter of great public importance. AFFIRMED. BOOTH and MINER, JJ., concur. . Cook v. State, 622 So. 2d 979 (Fla.1993). . Sylvester v. State, 572 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ford v. State, 572 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Pacheco v. State, 565 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1991); Harris v. State, 557 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); State v. Folsom, 552 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); and State v. Rodgers, 540 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1989)
- Harris v. State, 557 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Sims v. State, 441 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Wilson v. State, 531 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Radley v. State, 372 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Monroe v. State, 533 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Ervin Williams v. State, 533 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)