SHAMUS D. LAYMAN, 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.
A defendant is entitled to credit for time previously served in prison on the same charges when resentenced after a probation violation.
Layman pleaded nolo contendere and received a split sentence. Upon violating probation, he was resentenced but not given credit for time already serve…
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
PATTERSON, Chief Judge.
Shamus Layman appeals from the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for Layman to receive prison credit for time previously served.
Layman originally entered a nolo con-tendere plea to burglary, grand theft, and possession of burglary tools. On July 31, 1998, the trial court imposed a concurrent sentence of two years in the Department of Corrections (DOC) as a youthful offender, to be followed by two years’ probation.
Upon a violation of probation, the trial court sentenced Layman to 42.75 months in DOC custody. The sentence awards Layman 101 days of jail credit, but does not award prison credit (the prison credit provision on the form is not checked).
Upon sentencing for a violation of probation, the trial court’s failure to properly credit the defendant for prior-prison time served is an issue which the defendant may raise in a motion to correct illegal sentence. See Burnett v. State, 745 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Griffith v. State, 706 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Here, Layman’s sentence upon violation of probation does not grant him credit for time previously served in the DOC on these same charges. Upon violating the probationary portion of a split sentence, the defendant is entitled to credit for time served on the incareerative portion. See Singletary v. Slay, 688 So. 2d 319 (Fla.1997); Steele v. State 733 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Thus, we reverse the denial of Layman’s motion and remand for the trial court to check the prison credit provision on Layman’s sentence so that, in addition to the 101 days of jail credit, he receives prison credit for all time he previously served in the DOC on these charges prior to resentencing.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Haines v. State, 851 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ould show his entitlement to relief. See Smith v. State, 816 So. 2d 158, 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Defendants are entitled to prison credit for time previously served when they violate the probationary portion of a split sentence. See Layman v. State, 787 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Appellant’s claim to 987 days of prison credit, pursuant to Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993), for each offense in the remaining case numbers is facially sufficient because he was originally sentenced, using a single…
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…nary portion of a split sentence. Atkinson v. State, 860 So. 2d 982, 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“[Appellants are always entitled to prison credit previously served upon violating the probationary portion of a split sentence.”) (citing Layman v. State, 787 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)); see also Lewis, 894 So. 2d at 1086 (“As the State concedes, appellant should have been granted prison credit on the sentence imposed on his violation of probation for the time he spent in boot camp.”).3 Therefore, the State’…
-
Atkinson v. State, 860 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…pellant’s second claim, for prison credit [*984] previously served on each count, is reversed because appellants are always entitled to prison credit previously served upon violating the probationary portion of a split sentence. See Layman v. State, 787 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Appellants who originally served concurrent probationary split sentences are entitled to prison credit earned on each count when resentenced even if the new incarcerative terms are run consecutively to each other. See Jones v…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Singletary v. Genorval Slay, 688 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1997)
- Malmquist v. State, 733 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Griffith v. State, 706 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Burnett v. State, 745 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)