MARCUS F. SINGER, 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 while the sentences did not exceed statutory maximums, the defendant was entitled to additional credit for time served.
Singer was convicted of DUI multiple times and received split sentences and probation. After violating probation, the trial court imposed prison terms…
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 Probationary Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Marcus Smger appeals the demal of Ms motion to correct an illegal sentence. We reject Ms contention that Ms sentences exceeded the statutory máximums and affirm the trial court’s demal of relief on tMs ground. However, because Singer did not receive the proper credit under Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993), we reverse the demal on tMs claim.
Singer was convicted of driving under the influence in case 92-7018, a third-degree felony under section 316.193(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), and he received a probationary split sentence. During the probationary period, Singer was again convicted of driving under the influence in ease 93-11450. For the violation of probation in case 92-7013, Singer was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison followed by two-and-a-half years’ probation. At the same time, Singer received five years’ probation in case 93-11450 to run consecutive to the sentence in case 92-7013. After he violated probation again, the trial court imposed two concurrent terms of four years in prison but awarded credit for prison time only in case 92-7013.
“[I]f a trial court imposes a term of probation on one offense consecutive to a sentence of incarceration on another offense, credit for time served on the first offense must be awarded on the sentence imposed after revocation of probation on the second offense.” Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941, 942 (footnote omitted). Thus, Singer is entitled to credit on case 93-11450 for the prison time served on case 92-7013 after Ms first violation of probation. Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying relief on tMs ground should be reversed and the case remanded for an award of proper credit under Tripp. In all other respects, the order denying relief is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and BLUE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haines v. State, 851 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…iginally sentenced, using a single scoresheet, to incarceration followed by terms of probation and, upon revocation of probation, all sentences were made concurrent. See Burnett v. State, 745 So. 2d 1043, 1043-44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Singer v. State, 679 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Campbell v. State, 631 So. 2d 390, 390-91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). There is some indication in the record that appellant may have waived his right to jail and prison credit as part of a plea agreement. However, the record is i…
-
Atkinson v. State, 860 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…to Tripp credit and receives concurrent sentences upon violation of probation, such an appellant is entitled to concurrent Tripp credit on such concurrent sentences. See Campbell v. State, 631 So. 2d 390, 390-91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Singer v. State, 679 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Therefore, because the appellant was sentenced to concurrent 15 year terms of incarceration on counts two and three, the appellant was also entitled to receive concurrent terms of Tripp credit on both counts two and three i…
Authorities Cited
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)