VALENTIN
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.
Denier A. Valentin appeals a trial court's sua sponte order correcting duplicative jail credit awarded in error. The appellate court affirms the trial court's authority to correct the error but remands because the amended judgment still contains the duplicative credit that was ordered eliminated.
The trial court did not exceed its authority in correcting duplicative jail credit. However, because the amended judgment and sentence still contained the duplicative credit despite the court's order to eliminate it, the case is remanded for the trial court to properly correct the written judgment and sentence or otherwise calculate and clarify the appropriate jail credit.
“the trial court ordered that no duplicative jail credit should be awarded and directed the trial court clerk to correct the error, and yet the amended judgment and sentence still reflects the duplicative jail credit”
Establishes the core issue on remand—the discrepancy between the trial court's corrective order and what the written judgment actually shows
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court awarded duplicative jail credit to Valentin in error. The trial court sua sponte issued an order directing the trial court clerk to co…
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 Clerical Error Correction cases and more on FLexlaw
April 12,2024
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Denier A. Valentin, appeals the lower court’s sua sponte order directing the trial court clerk to correct his judgment and sentence to eliminate any duplicative jail credit that was awarded in error, arguing that the trial court exceeded its authority in correcting the jail credit amount.
We affirm on all issues raised by Appellant without further discussion. However, as raised by the State, the trial court ordered that no duplicative jail credit should be awarded and directed the trial court clerk to correct the error, and yet the amended judgment and sentence still reflects the duplicative jail credit. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to either correct the written judgment and sentence itself, or to otherwise calculate and clarify the appropriate amount of credit that should be reflected in the written judgment and sentence.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.
JAY, HARRIS, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur. _____________________________