VICTOR MONTESINO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Appellant's challenge to his sentence credit was denied as meritless, but the case was remanded to clarify whether his sentence should run concurrent or consecutive to other active sentences.
A trial court must clarify on remand whether a defendant's sentence runs concurrent or consecutive to other active sentences when the record does not reflect this specification.
[1] When a trial court imposes a sentence without specifying whether it runs concurrent or consecutive to other active sentences, remand is appropriate for the trial court to…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVictor Montesino appealed a lower court order denying his motion for correction and clarification of his sentence under Florida Rule 3.800. Montesino …
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Victor Montesino, seeks review of the lower court’s order denying his motion for correction and/or clarification of his sentence. made pursuant to rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. In that motion, Montesino first urges that he was not appropriately awarded 495 days credit for time served to which he was entitled. We find no merit to this assertion as the record clearly reflects that Montesino actually received 495 days credit for time served.
Montesino also seeks clarification of whether the sentence imposed in case number 92-24450 was to run concurrent or consecutive with other active sentences being served by him at that time. We note the absence of any indication in the record of whether the sentence in 92-24450 was to run concurrent or consecutive to'-outstanding sentences in other cases. Furthermore, the record also does not disclose whether' Mon-tesino’s sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement or guilty verdict. As the state properly concedes, it is appropriate for this cause to be remanded to the trial court for its specification of whether Montesino’s sentence in 92-24450 is to be served concurrent or consecutive with any other active sentences being served by Mon-tesino.