WILLIE HOWARD, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed and remanded a summary denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence where the trial court failed to provide adequate record support for its jail credit calculation and the State conceded the defendant was entitled to additional credit.
A trial court's denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence must be reversed and remanded when the court fails to attach record portions supporting its jail credit determination and the State concedes additional credit is due.
[1] A trial court must attach relevant record portions to an order denying jail credit to permit meaningful appellate review of the sentencing determination.
[2] A defendant may be entitled to gain time credit on a sentence under Tripp v. …
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillie Howard sought 219 additional days of jail credit for time spent in Sarasota County Jail prior to sentencing. The trial court granted 328 days t…
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 Gain Time Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Willie Howard appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Howard, in his motion, contended he should receive 219 days’ credit for the time he spent in Sarasota County Jail prior to sentencing. The trial court, in its order, granted Howard a total of 328 days’ jail credit. Howard was not satisfied with the trial court’s determination and appealed the order. From the limited record before this court, we were unable to confirm the findings of the trial court, because the court failed to attach to its order those portions of the record refuting appellant’s allegation that he deserves an additional 219 days’ jail credit. This court ordered a response from the attorney general, who conceded that Howard is entitled to additional jail credit for time served prior to his revocation of probation and further stated that Howard may be entitled to gain time credit on his 1987 sentence under Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993). Since it is the function of the sentencing court to assure compliance with Tripp, the instant case must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. See Branton v. State, 646 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, C.J., and BLUE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)
- Branton v. State, 646 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)