TIMOTHY L. RAGAN, 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 the motion to correct sentence based on inapplicable case law.
Timothy Ragan challenged the denial of his motion to correct sentence, arguing he was not credited with accumulated gain time after violating probatio…
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 State V. Green cases and more on FLexlaw
[*592] PER CURIAM.
Timothy Ragan challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct sentence. In the motion Ragan claims the trial court neglected to credit him with unforfeited gain time he had accumulated during the initial incarcerative portion of a split sentence when he violated the subsequent probationary portion of the sentence and a new prison sentence was imposed. We reverse.
The trial court denied relief relying on the window articulated in State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993). Ragan’s offense was committed on April 16, 1988, and Johnson provides relief to eligible applicants whose crimes occurred between October 1, 1989, and May 2, 1991. Johnson, however, concerns itself with the unconstitutionality of the habitual felony offender statute, and does not address unforfeited gain time eligibility first announced in State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla.1989).
Legislation passed after Green was issued prohibited crediting prisoners with un-forfeited gain time upon the imposition of a second sentence when the prisoner violated the probationary portion of a split sentence, which became effective October 1,1989. For offenses committed before that date prisoners remain entitled to credit for their unfor-feited gain time. See Cook v. State, 645 So. 2d 436, 438 n. 6 (Fla.1994).
Accordingly, we reverse for the trial court to review Ragan’s motion in view of the principles of Green and Cook.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1989)
- Cook v. State, 645 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1994)