CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY ARNETT, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to grant additional credit for time served because the resentencing order was made nunc pro tunc to the original sentencing date.
Appellant pleaded no contest and was sentenced, but received no credit for time served. After remand, he was resentenced and given credit for 108 days…
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to grant Appellant appropriate credit for all time served since his arrest. We affirm.
Appellant was charged with dealing in stolen property, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and two counts of burglary of a conveyance. On August 16, 1991, Appellant entered a no contest plea in exchange for a five year sentence with a three year minimum mandatory, to be followed by six months of probation. No credit for time served was granted at that time. On appeal, this court remanded for resentencing, Arnett v. State, 598 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Appellant was resentenced on July 24, 1992. At that time, he was given credit for 108 days of pre-sentence jail time which he was entitled to at his original sentencing on August 16, 1991. Appellant now argues that his sentence does not reflect the time he served between his original sentencing date of August 16, 1991, and July 24, 1992 when he was resentenced. We disagree.
On the final page of Appellant’s July 24, 1992, Sentence appears the language “NUNC PRO TUNC AUGUST 16, 1991.” Thus the sentencing form does make it clear that the sentence is to be served from August 16, 1991, and the trial court did not err. See Drumwright v. State, 572 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Mims v. State, 569 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The subsequent order entitled “Judgement, Sentence and Order Placing Defendant on Probation During Portion of Sentence,” which sets forth terms and conditions of probation, indicates it is effective July 24, 1992, the date of resentencing nunc pro tunc August 16, 1991.
Affirmed.
JOANOS, MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colon v. State, 909 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…iting Becker v. King, 307 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 317 So. 2d 76 (Fla.1975), which was recently again cited with approval by this court in Blais v. Blais, 410 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Id. at 814; see also Arnett v. State, 626 So. 2d 308, 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (“On the final page of Appellant’s July 24, 1992, Sentence appears the language ‘NUNC PRO TUNC AUGUST 16,1991.’ Thus the sentencing form does make it clear that the sentence is to be served from August 16, 1991, and the tria…
-
Johnson v. State, 120 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…rs that, at resentencing, the trial court imposed the new sentence nunc pro tunc to the date of the original sentence. Thus, the time for which appellant seeks additional credit would be post-sentencing credit calculated by DOC. See Arnett v. State, 626 So. 2d 308, 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (concluding there was no error where the sentence did not include credit between the original sentence and resen-tencing because the nunc pro tunc sentence imposed at resentencing made it clear the sentence was being served…
Authorities Cited
- Hutchins v. McCLUNG, 572 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Arnett v. State, 598 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Mims v. State, 569 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)