BOBBY HOUGH, 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 held that the trial court must specify the award of prison credit, even if the task of calculating the amount is delegated to the Department of Corrections.
Bobby Hough was sentenced to prison and probation, violated probation, and sought full credit for time served. The sentencing documents did not specif…
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.
Bobby Hough appeals the denial of his motion to correct a sentence that he alleges is illegal.1 The trial court denied Hough’s motion because a previous trial court order found that the Department of Corrections (DOC) should compute his gain-time credit. We reverse.
Hough was sentenced to twelve years in prison followed by five years’ probation. After serving almost three years in prison, Hough violated his probation. Hough sought to have the full twelve-year prison sentence credited to him pursuant to Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993).
In its response, the state urges us to remand this case to the trial court in order for the trial court to correct the sentencing documents to reflect an award of unforfeited prison credit. The state believes that this is necessary because Hough’s sentencing documents do not reflect that the trial court marked that Hough was entitled to prison credit and the DOC’s policy is not to apply Tripp credit, even if the DOC believes it should be credited, if the trial court does not specify it. As the state notes, the Fifth District, in Bacon v. State, 647 So. 2d 332, 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), stated, “Although the trial court can delegate to the Department of Corrections the task of determining the amount of gain time to be credited, the trial court must specifically provide for the award of gain time.” Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case for the trial court to determine if Hough is entitled to prison credit for any unforfeited gain-time.
Reversed and remanded.
FRANK, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur. . Hough styled his motion as Emergency Motion to Enforce Plea Agreement.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Belcher v. State, 685 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…may delegate to the Department of Corrections the responsibility to determine the number of days to be credited, it is the court’s responsibility to decide a prisoner’s entitlement to prison credit for any such unforfeited gain time. Hough v. State, 671 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Reversed and remanded. SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and BLUE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.…
-
Leija v. State, 684 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…n 944.275, Florida Statutes (1987). The court may delegate to the Department of Corrections the computation of the amount of gain time; however, it is the court’s responsibility to decide a defendant’s entitlement to such credit. See Hough v. State, 671 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The Florida Supreme Court held in Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993), and reemphasized in Cook v. State, 645 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1994), that when a defendant is sentenced on one charge to probation, consecutive to prison on a…
-
Brewster v. State, 686 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…n 944.275, Florida Statutes (1989). The court may delegate to the Department of Corrections the computation of the amount of gain time; however, it is the court’s responsibility to decide a defendant’s entitlement to such credit. See Hough v. State, 671 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). On remand, if the trial court again denies the motion, it shall attach those portions of the record which conclusively refute Brewster’s claim. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. SCHOONO…
Authorities Cited
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)
- Bacon v. State, 647 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)