MARION D. FIELDS, 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.
In this Anders appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's revocation of Marion Fields' probation and five-year prison sentence, but remanded for recalculation of time-served credits due to a potential discrepancy in how prior jail time was credited against the new sentence.
The probation revocation and five-year sentence were lawful and properly imposed, but the calculation of time-served credits contained an apparent discrepancy requiring the trial court to recalculate and determine the proper amount of credit to which Fields is entitled.
[1] A trial court's lawful sentencing following a probation revocation is affirmed when no error is found regarding the revocation itself.
[2] A trial court may award credit for time previously served against a sentence imposed after probation revocation.
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“It would appear that the credit applied against the instant sentence was arrived at by adding the original 163 day credit to the 44 days appellant spent in custody between the time of his arrest on the most recent violation and the imposition of the five year sentence.”
Explains the trial court's apparent methodology for calculating the 207-day credit, which the appellate court found to be incomplete.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFields was previously sentenced to one year in county jail with 163 days credit, later corrected to 220 days. Upon a new violation, his probation was …
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 Anders Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders appeal,1 we find no error with respect to the revocation of appellant’s probation. On the basis of that revocation, the trial court lawfully sentenced appellant to a term of five years in state prison, and pursuant to the representation of defense counsel, awarded credit for time previously served in the amount of 207 days. Our independent review of the record suggests, however, that the amount of credit for time previously served with respect to this offense may be in error. Based upon an earlier violation, appellant was sentenced to a term of one year in the county jail, and was originally granted credit against that sentence in the amount of 163 days. Shortly thereafter, the trial court entered an order correcting the amount of credit for time served from 163 to 220 days. It would appear that the credit applied against the instant sentence was arrived at by adding the original 163 day credit to the 44 days appellant spent in custody between the time of his arrest on the most recent violation and the imposition of the five year sentence. Thus, the 207 days credit seemingly does not include either the additional 57 days awarded by the trial court in its corrective order, or any additional time appellant served in the county jail pursuant to the prior one year sentence.
In view of this apparent discrepancy, we direct the trial court, on remand, to conduct such proceedings as are necessary to determine whether appellant has been afforded the proper amount of credit for time previously served with respect to this offense.
AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED with directions.
BOOTH, JOANOS and MICKLE, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).