VINCENT WHITEHEAD, 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.
Vincent Whitehead appealed the revocation of his probation and the trial court's refusal to credit him with time served in a sheriff-operated drug farm program. The court affirmed the probation revocation but remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the drug farm constituted coercive detention equivalent to incarceration, entitling him to jail-time credit under Florida law.
The court affirmed the probation revocation but reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the drug farm program was sufficiently restrictive to constitute the functional equivalent of incarceration, which would entitle Whitehead to jail-time credit against his sentence.
[1] A probationer is entitled to credit for time served in county jail as a condition of probation.
[2] The term "county jail" for credit purposes is not limited to institutions formally designated as jails; a detainee must be credited with time spent in an institution serv…
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“In being sentenced on revocation of probation, a probationer is entitled to credit for time served in county jail as a condition of the probation.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that probationers receive jail-time credit upon probation revocation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhitehead was on probation and participated in a drug farm program operated by the sheriff, described as similar to a boot camp. He violated the progr…
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 Coercive Deprivation Of Liberty cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
Appellant appeals the revocation of his probation and, in sentencing him, the trial court’s failure to credit him with time served while participating in a drug program. The particular program at issue was a “drug farm” that appears to be in the nature of a “boot camp” operated by the sheriff. Appellant’s revocation was based on his violating the program’s rules. We affirm the revocation but remand for an evidentiary hearing on the credit question.
In being sentenced on revocation of probation, a probationer is entitled to credit for time served in county jail as a condition of the probation. § 921.161(1), Fla.Stat. (1995); Sims v. State, 369 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1202 (Fla.1980).
The Florida Supreme Court has determined that the term “county jail” in the statute is not limited to. an institution formally designated as a “jail”; a detainee must be credited with any time spent in an institution serving as the functional equivalent of jail. Tal-Mason v. State, 515 So. 2d 738, 740 (Fla.1987) (holding defendant entitled to jail-time credit for coercive detention in mental institution).
The court distinguished Pennington v. State, 398 So. 2d 815, 817 (Fla.1981), in which it had approved this court’s opinion affirming a trial court order denying credit for time served as a condition of probation in a-live-in drug rehabilitation program, recognizing that probationary conditions of this nature generally do not constitute a coercive deprivation of liberty. 515 So. 2d at 739. See Smith v. State, 619 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (no credit for drug program which did not amount to coercive deprivation of liberty).
But see Cheney v. State, 640 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (drug farm program treated as term of imprisonment for purpose of determining legality of sentence).
Although the record on appeal contains very little information about the drug farm program, not only is it operated by the sheriff, but the record suggests that the participants may be more closely confined than those in more traditional independent live-in drug programs. For example, Appellant was . not released to the “street” upon violation of the program rules, but was placed directly into sheriffs confinement.
However, we are unable to determine from this record whether or not Appellant’s service in this drug farm sheriffs facility was sufficiently restrictive to be deemed the equivalent of incarceration.
Therefore, we reverse for an evidentiary hearing on that issue, on the basis of which the trial court is to determine again whether Appellant is entitled to credit for such service against the sentence imposed. See Singleton v. State, 373 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Sims, 369 So. 2d at 432. In all other respects, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
GLICKSTEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Williams v. State, 711 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…relief. Once again, we note that this court makes no determination as to whether a prisoner is entitled to jail time credit for time served in the drug farm. See Robinson v. State, 689 So. 2d 1147, 1149 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Whitehead v. State, 677 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). GUNTHER, STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
-
Kamerman v. State, 765 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ortions of the record conclusively showing no entitlement to relief or shall order an evidentiary hearing as to whether the program qualifies appellant for jail time credit. See Rasik v. State, 717 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Whitehead v. State, 677 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). GUNTHER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…His claim raises questions of fact as to the coerciveness and restrictiveness of the program. Appellant’s motion was properly denied because his claim requires an evidentiary hearing and must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion. See Whitehead v. State, 677 So. 2d 40, 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (affirming order revoking probation but remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether or not appellant’s service in this drug farm sheriffs facility was sufficiently restrictive to be deemed the equivalent of inca…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tal-Mason v. State, 515 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1987)
- Doretha Pennington v. State, 398 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1981)
- Cheney v. State, 640 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Sims v. State, 369 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Smith v. State, 619 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Singleton v. State, 373 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)