DAVID A. CROCKETT, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., 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.
Appellate court affirmed denial of habeas corpus petition, holding that credit for presentence prison time must be addressed in the sentencing court under Rule 3.800, not through habeas corpus.
Only the sentencing court may hear claims regarding credit for presentence prison time under Rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[1] Errors affecting the legality of a sentence, including denial of credit for presentence prison time, must be addressed in the sentencing court under Rule 3.800, Florida R…
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 intelligence“the reason for Petitioner's continued incarceration is that Petitioner was not given credit for the time he had served in state prison on the first prison term imposed along with his probation order, in apparent violation of the requirements of Tripp v. State”
Trial judge's findings regarding the basis for the habeas petition
Crockett was incarcerated and sought habeas corpus relief, claiming he was not given credit for time served in state prison on his first prison term i…
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 Presentence Jail Time Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In denying appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on grounds relief from an illegal sentence must be sought in the sentencing court, the learned trial judge concluded:
C. A review of the sentencing documents and of the pleadings indicates that the reason for Petitioner’s continued incarceration is that Petitioner was not given credit for the time he had served in state prison on the first prison term imposed along with his probation order, in apparent violation of the requirements of Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993).
D. The error of which the Petitioner complains relates to credit for presentence prison time, rather [than to] credit for time served after sentencing, and thus appears to affect the legality of the sentence itself. See Department of Corrections v. Mattress, 686 So. 2d 740 (Fla.App. 5th D.C.A. 1997); Rouse v. State, 643 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. App. 1st D.C.A.1994); Jones v. State, 635 So. 2d 41 (Fla.App. 1st D.C.A.1994). Errors affecting the legality of the sentence are appropriately heard only by the sentencing Court under Rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The trial judge was correct in his conclusion that only the sentencing court may hear the particular error complained of.
AFFIRMED.
KAHN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 933 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. Because appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was not filed in the sentencing court, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to address it. See e.g., Crockett v. Singletary, 723 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition on that basis, without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a proper post-eon-viction motion in the appropriate court. AFFIRMED. ERVIN, WEBSTER, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.…
-
Epps v. McNEIL, 37 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…his petition for writ of habeas corpus must be granted to correct a manifest injustice. Because the petition was not filed in the sentencing court, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to address his claim on the merits. See Crockett v. Singletary, 723 So. 2d 911, 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was without prejudice to his right to seek relief in the sentencing court. See Zuluaga v. State, Department of Corrections, 32 So…
-
Billue v. Liberty Corr. Inst., 941 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…on for writ of habeas corpus. Because Appellant did not file his petition in the sentencing court, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider his petition. See Johnson v. State, 933 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citing Crockett v. Singletary, 723 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)). We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s petition without prejudice for him to file a proper postconviction motion in the sentencing court. AFFIRMED. WOLF, LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)
- Dep't of Corr. v. Mattress, 686 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Loring Spencer Jones v. State, 635 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Rouse v. State, 643 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)