LEWEY V. LEE, 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.
A trial court must grant a defendant full credit for all time served in custody, including time served on the original offense and time awaiting disposition of a probation violation.
[1] A trial court must credit a defendant with all time served in custody, including time served on the original offense and time served awaiting disposition of a probation v…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Lee was incarcerated for eighteen months and also served time awaiting disposition of a violation of probation. The trial court denied his R…
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.
[*527] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800 motion to correct his sentence.
We reverse on the authority of State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla.1989), and remand with directions to grant appellant full credit for the eighteen months period of incarceration he previously served, in addition to time served awaiting disposition of his violation of probation.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
We treat the State’s Motion of Rehearing/Suggestion of Mootness as a motion for clarification. We grant the motion and clarify our opinion of July 11, 1990 as follows:
Although appellant is now out of jail, he is still entitled to have the court records accurately reflect the total time he served in jail. The trial court should credit appellant with the time he served for the original offense and the time he served awaiting the disposition of his violation of probation. Appellant need not be present when the trial court carries out our directions.
HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fountain v. State, 660 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ion alleging that because he was already in custody when he was charged in this case, he is entitled to jail credit from the date he was served with the capias on the new charges. Rule 3.800 is a proper vehicle for seeking jail credit, Lee v. State, 566 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and under Carver v. State, 653 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), appellant is entitled to credit from the date he was served with the capias on the new charges. The trial court…
-
Fernandez v. State, 669 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…for the same conviction. While the defendant is no longer in custody as to the sentence under review, it is clear that the defendant is “still entitled to have court records accurately reflect the total time he [*1135] served in jañ.” Lee v. State, 566 So. 2d 526, 527 (Pla. 4th DCA 1990). Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded for correction of sentence.…
-
State v. Wright, 27 So. 3d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fernandez v. State, 669 So. 2d 1134, 1134-35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Tucker v. State, 679 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Lee v. State, 566 So. 2d 526, 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1989)