ALFREDO FIGUEROA, 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.
Alfredo Figueroa appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence regarding jail credit calculations in two cases. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that while most of Figueroa's claims lacked merit, the trial court failed to properly credit him with seventeen days of jail time in one case where concurrent sentences were imposed.
The appellate court held that a Rule 3.800 motion is the proper vehicle to challenge jail credit awards. When a defendant is incarcerated for multiple crimes simultaneously and sentences are imposed to run concurrently, the defendant is entitled to credit for that time against sentences for each of those crimes. The trial court failed to refute Figueroa's claim that he should have received seventeen days of jail credit on case number 93-4575.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence is the proper procedural vehicle to challenge a trial court's award of jail credit.
[2] A defendant is entitled to credit against a sentence for time spent in jail for the charge that led to that sentence.
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 intelligence“A rule 3.800 motion is the proper vehicle to challenge an award of jail credit by the trial court.”
Establishes the proper procedural mechanism for challenging jail credit determinations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFigueroa was arrested on case number 93-4575 on May 12, 1996, and remained in jail until May 28, 1996. He was also charged in case number 93-1912 duri…
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 Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1194] PER CURIAM.
Alfredo Figueroa challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Figueroa contests the trial court’s determination of jail credit on two cases.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
The trial court’s order is affirmed in part because the record attached to the order refutes most of Figueroa’s claims that the trial court incorrectly denied him jail credit.
However, we reverse in part because the trial court failed to refute Figueroa’s claim that he was not properly credited with time spent in jail prior to the imposition of his sentence in case number 93-4575. A rule 3.800 motion is the proper vehicle to challenge an award of jail credit by the trial court. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998).
We reverse the order denying the motion because it fails to refute Figueroa’s assertion that the trial court neglected to award him seventeen days’ county jail credit prior to the imposition of the sentence he is currently serving in case number 93-4575, for the time from May 12, 1996, to May 28, 1996. It appears from the case progress notes attached to the trial court’s order that Figueroa was arrested on case number 93-4575 on May 12,1996. The court had credited Figueroa with this time in case number 93-1912, where the case progress notes also reflect Figueroa’s arrest. In Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), this court determined a defendant is only entitled to credit against each sentence for time spent in jail for the charge which led to that sentence.
However, this court further held that if a defendant is in jail at the same time for more than one crime, he will receive credit for that time against sentences for each of those crimes if his sentences are imposed to run concurrently.
Therefore, in this particular case, where Figueroa appears to have been in jail on both of these charges and the sentences were imposed to run concurrently, he should receive credit for that time on both of these cases.
On remand, the trial court may either credit Figueroa with the.seventeen days’ jail credit or it may attach portions of the record which refute the claim to its order of summary denial. In all other respects the order denying the motion to correct illegal sentence is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)