WILLIAM D. TUCKER, 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 erred in denying a motion to correct sentence based on mootness without considering the merits of the claim for credit for time served.
William D. Tucker sought credit for time served after revocation of community control. He alleged he did not receive all entitled county jail and gain…
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.
William D. Tucker seeks review of the denial of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the trial court failed to consider the merits of Tucker’s claim for credit for time previously served, we reverse.
Tucker alleges that he did not receive all of the county jail and gain time credit to which he was entitled when he was sentenced after revocation of his community control. Tucker was serving two concurrent sentences of 4½ years in prison with the last 2⅜ years suspended and to be served on community control when he violated community control and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 4½ years in prison.
Because Tucker’s crimes were committed before October 1, 1989, he is entitled to gain time granted during the service of the initial concurrent sentences pursuant to section 944.275, Florida Statutes (1989), as well as actual time served. Cook v. State, 645 So. 2d 436, 438, n. 6 (Fla.1994). Although the trial court 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. Belcher v. State, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1398, — So. 2d - (Fla. 2d DCA June 12, 1996).
The trial court did not consider the merits of Tucker’s motion, but rather decided that the issue was moot because the two sentences in question had been completed. Although Tucker is no longer in custody for the cases under review, he is in custody on other charges and is entitled to have the court records accurately reflect the total time he served in prison for the two cases in question. See Fernandez v. State, 669 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, C.J., and DANAHY and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raines v. State, 14 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…(Fla. 1st DCA 2008). At best, rule 3.800(a) might be useful to correct a sentencing error in a current state-court sentence as a result of an earlier illegal state-court sentence. See Mills v. State, 6 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Tucker v. State, 679 So. 2d 1261-62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). A petition for habeas corpus must normally be filed in a court that has jurisdiction over the location where the prisoner is confined. See Valdez-Garcia v. State, 965 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). There can be no question tha…
-
Mills v. State, 6 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…erving a thirty-year sentence on a 2001 case. Nothing indicates that any relief Mills seeks would have any impact on his current sentence. Mills contends that the postconviction court erred in dismissing his motion as moot, citing Tucker v. State, 679 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In Tucker, this court reversed the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion because the postconviction court did not consider the merits of the claim for credit for time previously served. Id. at 1262. The postconviction court in Tucker…
-
Vanderblomen v. State, 709 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ims for additional presentencing jail or prison credit without specifically discussing whether the alleged denials of credit had resulted in sentences beyond the “maximum period set forth by law for a particular offense.” See, e.g., Tucker v. State, 679 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Gonzalez v. State, 678 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Wiggins v. State, 670 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Worthington v. State, 667 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Slone v. State, 659 So. 2d [*148] 1208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Ful…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cook v. State, 645 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1994)
- Fernandez v. State, 669 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)