ANTHONY L. WHITEHURST, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concurrent Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Anthony White-hurst, challenges the denial of his sworn motion to declare his concurrent sentences to be coterminous and to award him additional credit for time spent in jail prior to sentencing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse only that aspect of the order regarding the award of jail credit because the trial court failed to attach portions of the record refuting appellant’s allegations. E.g., Summerall v. State, 637 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). On remand, if the trial court again denies relief, it must attach those parts of the record which refute those allegations. Additionally, because concurrent sentences in different cases are involved, appellant is only entitled to credit against each sentence for the time spent in jail for the charge which resulted in that sentence. Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). If appellant is aggrieved by any subsequent action of the trial court, he must file a timely notice of appeal to obtain further appellate review.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grant v. State, 965 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…t receive all jail credit for the time he was in the Pinellas County jail. Specifically, he alleges that he did not receive jail credit from December 2005 through June 2006, in case 06-12442. The postconviction court, relying on Whitehurst v. State, 654 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), correctly found that Mr. Grant was only entitled to credit against each sentence for time spent in jail on those charges. However, the postcon-viction court failed to attach portions of the record to conclusively refute Mr. Grant…
Authorities Cited
- Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Summerall v. State, 637 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)