DOUGLAS HAYWOOD A/K/A DOUGLAS AVERY HARWOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Douglas Haywood appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging the trial court's order that he serve contempt sentences after completing his grand theft sentences. The court held that the five and one-half months Haywood served in county jail before transfer to the Department of Corrections should be credited toward his grand theft sentences, not his contempt sentences, because the trial court ordered contempt time to be served only after completion of the theft sentences.
The court held that the five and one-half months served in county jail must be credited toward the grand theft sentences because the trial court clearly ordered that Haywood serve his contempt sentences only after completing his theft sentences. Since Haywood had not yet completed his theft sentences while in the county jail, he was not serving his contempt sentences during that period.
[1] A defendant is entitled to credit for time served in county jail towards a sentence for grand theft when that time was served prior to the commencement of the grand theft…
[2] A contempt sentence ordered to be served upon completion of other sentences does not commence until those other sentences are completed.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Defendant has not served any time on the contempt sentences because he has not completed his sentences on the grand theft counts. The trial court clearly ordered that defendant be returned to the county jail to serve his contempt sentences after he had completed the sentences imposed on the grand theft counts.”
Establishes that the trial court's order contemplated contempt sentences being served only after completion of theft sentences, meaning jail time before transfer to Department of Corrections could not satisfy contempt sentences.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 1, 1989, Haywood pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of grand theft and was sentenced to concurrent 17-year terms. He failed to surrender on …
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 Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary denial of a rule 3.800 motion to correct an illegal sentence.
On May 1,1989, defendant plead nolo con-tendere to two counts of grand theft and was sentenced to concurrent terms of seventeen years on each count. On May 5,1989, defendant failed to surrender and begin his prison terms as required by the trial court. On December 13, 1993, defendant’s sentences were amended to reflect that defendant would serve concurrent terms of seven years on each of the theft counts. At that time the trial court also found defendant in contempt of court for failing to surrender at the appointed time. The trial court ordered defendant to serve two concurrent six month terms, in the county jail, upon completion of the sentences imposed on the grand theft counts.
Defendant alleges that he served five and one half months in the county jail prior to being transferred to the Department of Corrections to begin serving his seven year sentences on the grand theft counts. Defendant urges that those five and one half months spent in the county jail were served in fulfillment of the contempt sentences, and that he should receive credit for the time served on the contempt sentences, towards his release on the grand theft counts.
Defendant misapprehends the nature of his sentences. Defendant has not served any time on the contempt sentences because he has not completed his sentences on the grand theft counts. The trial court clearly ordered that defendant be returned to the county jail to serve his contempt sentences after he had completed the sentences imposed on the grand theft counts. Simply put, the five and one half months defendant served in the county jail, prior to being transferred to the department of corrections, was not served in satisfaction of his contempt of court sentences. Since defendant was not serving his contempt of court sentences while in the county jail, the five and one half months he spent in the county jail must be credited to the sentences imposed on the grand theft counts. See § 921.161, Fla.Stat.' (1986).
Therefore, the sentences on the grand theft charges are modified to show credit for time served in the county jail.
Affirmed as modified.