JUAN C. KESSELL, 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.
Juan C. Kessell appealed an order denying additional credit for time served in New York while awaiting extradition to Florida. The court reversed, holding that when a plea agreement provides for credit for time served without limitation, it includes all time served in custody related to the Florida offense, including incarceration in other jurisdictions.
The trial court has discretion to award credit for time served in another state when the defendant was incarcerated solely because of the Florida offense. Where a plea agreement provides for credit for time served without limitation, it should be construed to include all time served in custody related to the Florida offense, including time in other jurisdictions.
[1] A trial court has discretion to award credit for time served in another jurisdiction when the defendant was incarcerated solely because of the Florida offense for which t…
[2] When a plea agreement provides for credit for time served without limitation, it is logically construed to include credit for all time served, including time spent incarc…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court has discretion to make an award of such credit for time served "when the defendant was incarcerated in another state solely because of the Florida offense for which he or she is being sentenced."”
Establishes the legal standard for awarding credit for time served in other jurisdictions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKessell faced multiple criminal charges and fled to New York, where he was arrested and incarcerated for several months pending extradition. Upon retu…
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 Extradition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Juan C. Kessell appeals an order denying his postconviction motion for additional credit for time served prior to trial. We reverse.
With multiple criminal charges pending, defendant-appellant fled to New York where he was ultimately arrested. He was incarcerated for several months pending extradition. Upon his return to Florida, he entered into a plea agreement for twenty-four-month concurrent sentences with credit for time served. He contends that the credit he was awarded does not include credit for some of the time he was incarcerated in New York awaiting extradition, and the State concedes that is so.
The State opposes the award of any additional credit, arguing that a defendant is not entitled, as a matter of right, to credit for time served in other jurisdictions while awaiting transfer to Florida. See Kronz v. State, 462 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla.1985); Hopping v. State, 650 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). It is also true, however, that the trial court has discretion to make an award of such credit for time served “when the defendant was incarcerated in another state solely because of the Florida offense for which he or she is being sentenced.” Kronz, 462 So. 2d at 451.
In this case the plea colloquy simply indicates that the plea agreement includes credit for time served. The “credit for time served” phrase was repeated numerous times in the colloquy. There was no discussion, one way or the other, about credit for the time defendant was incarcerated in New York.
It is our view that in this circumstance, where the plea agreement provided for credit for time served without limitation, the plea agreement is most logically construed as including credit for all time served, including time served in New York solely because of the Florida offense on which defendant was awaiting extradition. Having led the defendant reasonably to conclude that he would be given credit for all, not just some, of the time he spent in custody, it is too late now to suggest otherwise. That being so, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded for recalculation of credit for time served.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pino-Roque v. State, 718 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…h DCA 1995) (holding that court lacked jurisdiction, more than sixty days after sentencing, to delete jail credit previously awarded), all support defendant’s argument. Moreover under the instant facts, as we recently observed in Kessell v. State, 713 So. 2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), “May-ing led the defendant reasonably to conclude that he would be given credit for all, not just some, of the time he spent in custody, it is too late now to suggest otherwise.” Accordingly, the order under review is rev…
-
Picariello v. State, 728 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…We treat this as a motion for relief under Rule 3.850, and reverse the order under review. Picariello argues the trial court erred in not crediting him for time served in other jurisdictions while awaiting transfer to Florida. In Kessell v. State, 713 So. 2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) we concluded as follows: The State opposes the award of any additional credit, arguing that a defendant is not entitled, as a matter of right, to credit for time served in other jurisdictions while awaiting transfer to Flo…
-
Bedoy v. State, 829 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…otion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The State concedes that defendant-appellant Bedoy is entitled to a hearing in light of Picariello v. State, 728 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (quoting Kessell v. State, 713 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)). We reverse the order now under review and remand for a hearing. Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Kronz v. State, 462 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1985)
- Hopping v. State, 650 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)