JOHN FRANK HIRES, 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 affirmed the sentence because the record did not establish the amount of credit for time served that the appellant claimed was due.
[1] A defendant challenging a sentence for failure to award additional credit for time served must establish the amount of credit that should have been awarded from the recor…
[2] A defendant seeking credit for time spent in prison prior to resentencing, when the record does not differentiate between jail and prison time, should pursue the matter a…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was found guilty of violating conditions of supervision and sentenced to prison followed by probation. He was awarded some credit for ti…
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 Supervised Release cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, the appellant challenges his sentence to the extent that the trial court faded to award additional credit for time previously served. Because the record fails to establish the amount of credit that should have been awarded, we affirm the sentence.
The appellant was found guilty of violating conditions of supervision, and the trial court revoked probation in two eases and community control in another. The appellant was sentenced to concurrent sanctions on all three cases of 40 months in prison followed by 20 months on probation. He was awarded 155 days “as credit for time incarcerated before imposition of this sentence,” and “credit for all time previously served on this count in the Department of Corrections prior to resentencing.”
Although the appellant contends that he is entitled to additional credit for time served, he fails to differentiate between jail time and prison time. To the extent that the appellant contends he was not awarded credit for time spent in prison, he should pursue that matter administratively. See Williams v. State, 673 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). To the extent that he contends he is entitled to additional jail time, he has not carried the burden of showing error because the record before us does not establish the amount of time the appellant spent in jail. See Wilkins v. State, 673 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The appellant still has the option of pursuing this matter under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See id.
Although the state concedes that the appellant is entitled to “some” credit for time spent on supervised release against the probationary portion of his current split sentence, since his current split sentence constitutes the maximum penalty as to one of his offenses, see Davis v. State, 667 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), again, the record does not establish how much time the appellant previously spent on supervised release. The appellant may also pursue this claim under rule 3.850.
The sentence is affirmed.
MINER, ALLEN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vanderblomen v. State, 709 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…0 So. 2d 393, 393-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Williams v. State, 699 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Willey v. State, 699 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Ramos, 697 So. 2d at 232; Butler v. State, 695 So. 2d 857, 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Hires v. State, 688 So. 2d 414, 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Barfield, 671 So. 2d at 821. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court has also apparently taken the position that sentencing errors which do not result in an illegal sentence, while not cognizable in 3.800(a) motions, can still b…
Authorities Cited
- Detrich Williams v. State, 673 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Davis v. State, 667 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- L.A. Horsted v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 673 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Wilkins v. State, 673 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)