JORGE L. DOMINGUEZ, JR., 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 appellant is entitled to credit for gain-time earned on the incarcerative portion of his split sentence.
Appellant sought credit for gain-time on a split sentence for offenses committed before October 1, 1989. The Department of Corrections indicated the s…
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.
Jorge Dominguez appeals the denial of his motion to correct sentence, which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse.
Appellant alleges that the trial court failed to award him credit for the gain-time earned on the incarcerative portion of his previously imposed split sentence. The underlying offenses occurred prior to October 1, 1989. Attached to the motion is a letter from the Department of Corrections, which indicates that the number of days’ credit reflected in the sentences does not include credit for incentive and educational gain-time. Pursuant to Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941, 942 n. 2 (Fla.1993), appellant is entitled to receive credit for the time served on the prison term, including previously earned basic, educational and incentive gain-time. Tripp has retroactive application. Jean v. State, 627 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
The trial court denied the motion without explanation, attaching copies of the judgment and sentences and case progress notes. None of the attachments reflect how the credit awarded was calculated. Accordingly, we reverse the denial and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court should again deny relief, it must attach portions of the files and records refuting appellant’s allegations.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fernandez v. State, 807 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…the ten-year maximum permitted sentence for a third-degree felony under the habitual offender statute). However, the trial court’s order failed to address Fernandez’s claim or to attach record documents that refute [*788] it. See Dominguez v. State, 630 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the claim that the sentences are illegal. If the trial court again concludes that summary denial is proper, it must set forth its rationale and attach any relevant porti…
Authorities Cited
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)
- Jean v. State, 627 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)