JAMES HENDERSON, 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 a motion for credit against sentences for time at liberty after release, when made after sentencing, is not properly before the trial court.
James Henderson was convicted of murder and firearm offenses, released due to a reversed conviction, then reincarcerated when convictions were reinsta…
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 Administrative Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Judge.
James Henderson was charged and convicted by a jury of: Count I — second degree murder; Count II — use of a firearm in the commission of a felony; and Count III— carrying a concealed firearm. On direct appeal, this court reversed Henderson’s convictions on Counts I and II, 507 So. 2d 632. Subsequently, on certiorari review, the Florida Supreme Court quashed this court’s decision and reinstated the convictions, 521 So. 2d 1113. Henderson, who had been released from the Department of Corrections by virtue of our mandate, was reincarcerated. The trial court denied Henderson’s motion for credit against his sentences for the time he was at liberty. We affirm.
Without addressing the merits of Henderson’s motion, we hold he has sought the wrong remedy. We recognize that pre-sentence jail time credit is a matter within the purview of the trial court and the failure to make a proper award affects the validity of a sentence. Morgan v. State, 557 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). However, an award of credit after sentencing is a matter for the Department of Corrections. See Reynolds v. State, 590 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding the request for credit after sentencing did not impact the legality of the sentence, and 'thus was not properly before the trial court); Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also § 921.161(2), Fla.Stat. (1993).
Henderson’s entitlement to relief, if any, is properly sought through administrative proceedings and, if necessary, by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus naming the Department of Corrections as respondent. Killings v. State, 567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Brown.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS, C.J., and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Corr. v. Mattress, 686 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…this is that an award of credit after sentencing is a matter for DOC rather than the trial court as a request for such credit does not affect the legality of the sentence. See Bowles v. State, 647 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Henderson v. State, 632 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Reynolds v. State, 590 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also § 921.161(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); Bland v. State, 664 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Grimes v. State, 657 So. 2d…
-
Stevens v. State, 651 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…hat the credit appellant received on each case is correct. Appellee argues that the trial court’s order is legally correct because an award of credit after sentencing is a matter for the Department of Corrections. This court in Henderson v. State, 632 So. 2d 653, 653-654 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) held that “presentence jail time credit is a matter within the purview of the trial court and the failure to make a proper award affects the validity of a sentence.” In Morgan v. State, 557 So. 2d 605, 606 (Fla. 1st DCA…
-
Knox v. State, 692 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…any of his pre-sentence credit time served. The state responds to appellant’s motion with the argument that appellant must address this issue exclusively with the department of corrections and not with the sentencing court. See Henderson v. State, 632 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (holding award of credit time after sentencing is matter for department of corrections by way of a writ of mandamus). While Henderson does hold that the actual award of credit time after sentencing is a matter for the department…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Forney v. State, 567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Killings v. State, 567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Reynolds v. State, 590 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Morgan v. State, 557 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- State v. Henderson, 521 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1988)
- Henderson v. State, 507 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)