ALTON EUGENE DIGGS, 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.
Alton Diggs appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for correction of sentence seeking jail and prison credit. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial court misapplied the rules governing sentence correction and erroneously denied Diggs credit for prior prison terms and jail time served.
The trial court erroneously applied the 60-day time limit of Rule 3.800(c) instead of Rule 3.800(a), which allows correction of illegal sentences at any time. On the merits, Diggs was entitled to credit for the full three-year prison terms completed in 1991 plus 196 days of county jail time, and the case was remanded to determine whether concurrent jail credit was owed in Case No. 93-76.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) may be filed at any time, and is not subject to a 60-day time limit.
[2] A trial court's order denying a motion for correction of sentence must be reversed if the court fails to attach documentation supporting its findings.
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“The trial court erroneously considered the motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c), which has a 60-day time limit, instead of rule 3.800(a), which allows for correction of illegal sentences at any time.”
Establishes the primary procedural error—the trial court misapplied the applicable rule for sentence correction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDiggs had completed three-year concurrent prison terms in 1991 in Case No. 91-60, but was not given credit for this time when resentenced to seven-yea…
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 Prison Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the denial of his motion for correction of sentence wherein he sought jail and prison credit.
The trial court denied the motion, because it was untimely in that appellant had filed it more than 60 days after sentence was imposed, and because the motion constituted an abuse of process in that the court had previously denied a motion to correct in April 1995.
We reverse.
The trial court erroneously considered the motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c), which has a 60-day time limit, instead of rule 3.800(a), which allows for correction of illegal sentences at any time. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998).
Moreover, since the trial court failed to attach the 1995 motion and order to the order on review, we cannot determine whether appellant’s 1998 motion was an abuse of process.
Turning to the merits, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion. The record before us clearly shows that appellant was not given credit for the three-year concurrent prison terms he completed in 1991 in Case No. 91-60 when he was resentenced to seven-year terms on March 25, 1993, following revocation of probation in that case. See State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla.1989). The trial court is directed on remand to allow credit on the seven-year sentences for the full three-year prison terms appellant completed, as well as for the 196 days appellant served in county jail prior to the March 25, 1993, resentencing.
The trial court also erred in denying appellant’s motion for jail credit in Case No. 93-76.
Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1991), required the trial court to allow credit for all time served prior to imposition of sentence. Unless it is shown that appellant was not serving time for multiple charges while imprisoned, he was entitled to jail time credit on each concurrent sentence. See and compare Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986); Whitney v. State, 493 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Walker v. State, 579 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Because the trial judge failed to attach any documentation evidencing the arrest dates and violation of probation warrant or any other documentation refuting appellant’s claim that he was imprisoned from November 25, 1992, to March 25, 1993, on both the charge arising under Case No. 93-76 and the violation of probation in Case No. 91-60, the order must also be reversed and the case remanded on this point. See Stevens v. State, 651 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Davis v. State, 543 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BARFIELD, C.J., ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kendrigan v. State, 941 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ese cases. On remand, if the new offenses were not the basis for revocation, the trial court must attach record evidence showing that appellant was not in jail on both the new charges and the violation charges at the same time. See Diggs v. State, 727 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Davis v. State, 543 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See also Lavrich v. State, 633 So. 2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). WARNER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Wells v. State, 751 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ime served were negotiated. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Failure to award credit for time served on a criminal sentence may be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998); Diggs v. State, 727 So. 2d 346, 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). In Mancino, the court explained that— The entitlement to time served is not a disputed issue of fact in the sense that an evidentiary hearing is needed to determine whether there is such an entitlement. Hence, if the recor…
-
Kreshawn B. Perkins v. State, 801 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…the circuit court with directions to either attach record excerpts that conclusively establish that the appellant is not entitled to the credit he seeks, or to grant the relief sought. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998); Diggs v. State, 727 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Davenport v. State, 664 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). REVERSED AND REMANDED. DAVIS, BENTON and BROWNING, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1989)
- Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1986)
- Whitney v. State, 493 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Walker v. State, 579 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Hammer v. State, 543 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Stevens v. State, 651 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)