WILBUR ALLEN MYERS, 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.
The court held that the appellant's offense date fell outside the window period for unconstitutional sentencing guidelines and that time served on house arrest is not credited as incarceration.
Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to correct his sentence, arguing his offense occurred during a period when sentencing guidelines were unco…
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 Single Subject Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Myers appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He alleged his criminal offense was committed on June 5, 1997, and he was sentenced under the 1995 amendment to the guidelines, which the Florida Supreme Court has held violated the single-subject rule. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). He also argues his sentence is illegal because the trial court failed to award him credit for time served on house arrest. We affirm.
With regard to the Heggs’ argument, the district courts had ruled that the window period during which the 1995 guidelines were unconstitutional began on October 1, 1995, and closed either on October 1, 1996,1 or on May 24, 1997.2 The Florida Supreme Court has resolved the conflict, holding that window period closed on May 24, 1997.3 Thus, the date Myers allegedly committed his criminal offense falls outside the window period and the constitutional infirmity was cured by that date.
We have also held that a criminal defendant is not entitled to credit for time served on house arrest. See McCarthy v. State, 689 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Although the requirements that a defendant on house arrest wear an electronic bracelet, check daily with a supervisor by telephone and once a week in person, are onerous, they are not equivalent to incarceration in jail. Myers acknowledges he was allowed to go to work and to school while on house arrest. Clearly he enjoyed liberties far greater than prison inmates. Further, there is no statutory basis which permits awarding credit for time served on house arrest.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. . Bortel v. State, 743 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
. Diaz v. State, 752 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
. Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Huskins v. State, 770 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Myers v. State, 761 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Shmuel v. State, 691 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). JOANOS, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Jones v. State, 858 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…[*1111] PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Myers v. State, 761 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). SHARP, W., ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.…
-
Suarez v. State, 24 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Myers v. State, 761 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Bortel v. State, 743 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Diaz v. State, 752 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- McCARTHY v. State, 689 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)