DEREK STEVENS, 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.
Derek Stevens appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for credit for 274 days of time served across four criminal cases. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court failed to provide adequate documentation explaining its jail credit determinations and must do so on remand.
The trial court erred in denying Stevens's motion for jail time credit without providing documentation of the arrest dates and the amount of credit due for each case. When a defendant receives concurrent sentences from arrests on different dates, jail credit must be properly allocated to each case based on actual custody time.
[1] A trial court must allow a defendant credit for all time spent in county jail before sentencing.
[2] When a defendant receives concurrent sentences, presentence jail time credit must be applied to each sentence.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time he spent in the county jail before sentence”
Establishes the statutory requirement for jail time credit under Florida Statutes § 921.161(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStevens was arrested in four separate cases on different dates: October 13, 1993 (Case 91-5480), September 19, 1993 (Case 92-30649), June 28, 1993 (Ca…
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 Presentence Jail Time Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This appeal involves four lower court eases. Derek Stevens a/k/a Earnest Hughes, Jr., appellant, argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion to allow credit for 274 days time served in all four cases. According to the record provided to this court, appellant was arrested: in Case No. 91-5480 on October 13,1993, in Case No. 92-30649 on September 19,1993, for violation of probation, in Case No. 93-32935 on June 28, 1993, and in Case No. 93-34081 on September 7, 1993. At appellant’s sentencing hearing held on April 6, 1994, appellant informed the trial court that he had been in custody for approximately six and one-half months. No other evidence was presented to this court as to whether appellant remained incarcerated after each of his arrests. Appellant received 274 days credit for Case No. 92-30649, 178 days credit for Case No. 91-5480, one day of credit for Case No. 93-34081, and one day of credit for Case No. 93-32935.
Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1993) provides that “the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time he spent in the county jail before sentence.” This court has recognized that when a defendant receives concurrent sentences, the credit must be applied to each of the concurrent sentences.
However, when a defendant does not spend the same time in jail awaiting sentence on each of the several offenses because the defendant was arrested for each offense on a different date, the defendant may have earned more jail time credit against one sentence than another. Price v. State, 598 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Because appellant was arrested for four different cases at different times, appellant was not entitled to 274 days of credit for all four cases. It is not clear from the record, however, that 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 1990), the First District recognized that the function of Rule 3.800(a) is to correct sentences, and it is well established that credit for jail time can be raised under this rule. See also Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986); Martin v. State, 525 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (on mo tion for rehearing en bane); Baranko v. State, 516 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
The trial court had jurisdiction to correct appellant’s sentence if appellant did not receive the correct amount of credit for time served prior to sentencing.
Appellant contends that because of the discrepancies which exist regarding the amount of his jail time credit, this court should reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to allow jail credit. Appellee admits that neither the record nor the order reflect the basis of the trial court’s determination of jail credit. In denying appellant’s motion to correct jail time, the trial court should have attached documentation evidencing the arrest and sentencing dates, or documentation that refutes appellant’s claim. Faust v. State, 644 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); McCloud v. State, 638 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Alexander v. State, 638 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Other than appellant’s statement to the trial court that he had been in custody for six and one-half months, the appellate record contains no definitive explanation as to the amount of time appellant actually served in each case.
The record does not adequately reflect the trial court’s ruling.
Therefore, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to allow jail credit should be reversed. On remand, if the trial court denies appellant’s motion, it must attach documentation evidencing when appellant was arrested on each case and the amount of credit appellant is due for time served prior to sentencing on each case.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)…f the claim could be resolved without an evidentiary hearing through a review of the trial court’s records. See, e.g., Jones v. State, 635 So. 2d 41, 42-43 (Fla. 1st DCA [1994]); Carver v. State, 653 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Stevens v. State, 651 So. 2d 1298, 1299-1300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Rouse v. State, 643 So. 2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Handford v. State, 637 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2d…
-
Barber v. State, 661 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…the defendant was awarded 121 days credit for time served. The sentencing order in circuit court case no. 92-14144 reflects that the defendant has been awarded 58 days credit for time served. Both sentencing orders are correct. See Stevens v. State, 651 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Since the trial court had already correctly calculated the credit for time served and made correct awards on the sentencing orders in the two eases, no further judicial action was needed by the trial court. Accordingly there was…
-
Alton Eugene Diggs v. State, 727 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…he was imprisoned from November 25, 1992, to March 25, 1993, on both the charge arising under Case No. 93-76 and the violation of probation in Case No. 91-60, the order must also be reversed and the case remanded on this point. See Stevens v. State, 651 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Davis v. State, 543 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. BARFIELD, C.J., ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., CONCUR.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1986)
- Price v. State, 598 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Martin v. State, 525 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Morgan v. State, 557 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Henderson v. State, 632 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Baranko v. State, 516 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Campbell v. State, 638 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- McCLOUD v. State, 638 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Kravitz v. State, 638 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Faust v. State, 644 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)