SHARON CLARK, 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 reverses and remands Sharon Clark's sentence for reconsideration of gain-time credits upon revocation of community control. The case turns on whether the post-1989 statute allowing forfeiture of gain-time applies to Clark's original offense committed in 1984, and whether the trial court properly directed the Department of Corrections to calculate time credits.
The post-1989 statute allowing forfeiture of gain-time is inapplicable to offenses committed before October 1, 1989. The trial court must award time credits pursuant to State v. Green for pre-1989 offenses, though it may delegate the ministerial calculation function to the Department of Corrections. Administrative gain-time credits based on prison overcrowding are not available for prisoners convicted of aggravated battery and cannot be included in time-credit awards.
[1] A statute providing for forfeiture of gain time upon revocation of probation is not applicable to crimes committed prior to its effective date.
[2] For offenses committed before October 1, 1989, the rule of law regarding gain time upon revocation of probation is established by State v. …
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Section 948.06(6), Florida Statutes (1989), provides in pertinent part that upon revocation of probation or community control, gain time accrued prior to release on probation or community control may be deemed to be forfeited. However, this statute is not applicable where the original crime was committed prior to October 1, 1989, the effective date of the statute.”
Establishes the temporal scope of the gain-time forfeiture statute and the controlling legal rule for pre-1989 offenses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClark was charged with aggravated battery for an offense committed on December 12, 1984. She received an initial sentence of eighteen months DOC incar…
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
PER CURIAM.
We reverse appellant’s sentence and remand with direction to reconsider the credit for gain-time to be awarded to appellant.
Section 948.06(6), Florida Statutes (1989), provides in pertinent part that upon revocation of probation or community control, gain time accrued prior to release on probation or community control may be deemed to be forfeited. However, this statute is not applicable where the original crime was committed prior to October 1, 1989, the effective date of the statute. See Bradley v. State, 631 So. 2d 1096 (Fla.1994); Roff v. State, 644 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Webb v. State, 630 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). For offenses committed before October 1, 1989, the applicable rule of law is that stated in State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla.1989). See, e.g., Webb, 630 So. 2d at 675-76; Thomas v. State, 605 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), disapproved of on other grounds by Bradley v. State, 631 So. 2d 1096 (Fla.1994) (quashing Thomas’ interpretation of effective date of statute); Bolden v. State, 557 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Appellant was charged with aggravated battery for an offense committed on December 12, 1984. She pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to serve eighteen months DOC incarceration, followed by a period of five years of probation, with twenty days of jail credit. On December 21, 1987, upon revocation of probation, appellant was sentenced to three years DOC incarceration, followed by two years probation. The order of sentence indicates 111 days of jail credit, whereas the order of probation indicates 359 days of jail credit. On March 31, 1994, upon the second revocation of probation, appellant was placed on community control for one year, followed by probation for one year. On June 23, 1994, upon revocation of community control, appellant was sentenced to five and one-half years DOC incarceration.
Appellant asserts that she did not receive the total of four and one-half years credit to which she was entitled, representing her previous sentences of eighteen months and three years. The sentencing order in the immediate case shows that appellant was allowed 568 days of county jail credit, but the record on appeal does not indicate how much DOC time-served or gain-time, if any, was credited to appellant, based on the calculations of DOC. What is problematic in this case is that the trial court’s direction to DOC to apply credit for “unforfeited gain-time” suggests the possibility that DOC might have applied the post-1989 rule and forfeited gain-time credit due to appellant’s violation of community control.
Although it is the duty of the trial court to make an award providing for time to be credited pursuant to Green, 547 So. 2d at 925, the court may enlist DOC to perform the ministerial duty of calculating the amount of time to be credited. See, e.g., Sapp v. State, 652 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). If the trial court does enlist the aid of DOC again, DOC must proceed in accordance with this opinion.
Appellee argues that DOC could have can-celled provisional credits or administrative gain-time credits, which are based on prison overcrowding, because appellant was convicted of aggravated battery. See Webb, 630 So. 2d at 676. Even before these credits were statutorily cancelled by section 944.278, Florida Statutes (1993), they have not been available since 1988 to prisoners convicted of aggravated battery. See § 944.277(l)(d), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). However, if part of appellant’s gain-time did include administrative gain-time credits, then this portion may not be included in the credit of time awarded to appellant. See Webb, 630 So. 2d at 676.
GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adamson v. Chavis, 672 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…majority’s reading of section 61.13(2)(b)l as prohibiting trial courts from giving any weight to a child’s age, regardless of the circumstances, when fashioning a visitation schedule for the noncustodial parent. To the extent that Saucier v. Willis, 656 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and Kerr v. Kerr, 486 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), can be read as standing for such a proposition, I note that neither decision offers any justification for such an expansive reading of the critical language in section 61.13(…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1989)
- L.C. Bradley v. State, 631 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 1994)
- L.V. Thomas v. State, 605 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Bolden v. State, 557 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Webb v. State, 630 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Vitucci v. Fla. Med. Ctr., Inc., 644 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Elie v. TFB Props., Inc., 652 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Sapp v. State, 652 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)