WILLIE C. DAVIS, 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 appellant is entitled to credit for time served on probation for the probationary portion of a split sentence, and that scrivener's errors in written sentences should be corrected by the trial court.
Appellant complained that his sentences did not properly reflect credit for time previously served on probation and in jail or prison. The state agree…
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 Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant complains that his sentences do not reflect proper credit for time previously served on probation and in either jail or prison. The state' agrees that appellant is entitled to credit for time previously served on probation with regard to the probationary portion of the new split sentence imposed as to count two. E.g., Waters v. State, 662 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1995). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed as to count two, and remand with directions that appellant be given credit for all time previously spent on probation.
We also note that, although the trial court orally pronounced a sentence of five years’ incarceration, with no probation to follow, as to count one, the written sentence reflects that the period of incarceration is to be followed by two years on probation. On remand, we direct the trial court to correct this scrivener’s error. All of appellant’s remaining complaints regarding credit for time previously spent in either jail or prison are properly directed to the Department of Corrections. E.g., Williams v. State, 673 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, we affirm as to those complaints.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
MINER, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Waters v. State, 662 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1995)
- Detrich Williams v. State, 673 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)