BRANDON L. DAWSON, 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.
Brandon Dawson challenged a trial court's summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, seeking jail credit for time served awaiting trial on an unrelated charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that Dawson failed to provide record evidence that the probation violation warrant was actually transmitted to and received by the county holding him on the unrelated charges.
A defendant serving time on separate warrants from different counties is entitled to jail credit on both convictions (unless receiving consecutive sentences) only from the time the warrant is transmitted or issued to the incarcerating county. To establish a facially sufficient claim for jail credit in an unrelated case, the defendant must point to record evidence that the warrant was actually received by the other county, not merely that it was issued.
[1] A defendant is entitled to jail credit on separate warrants from different counties, even if incarcerated on unrelated charges, from the time the warrant is transmitted o…
[2] To establish a facially sufficient claim for jail credit on an unrelated charge, a defendant must present record evidence that the warrant was received by the county of i…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 defendant is deemed to be in custody on separate warrants from different counties, and therefore entitled to jail credit on both convictions unless the defendant receives consecutive sentences, from the time the warrant is transmitted or issued to the county incarcerating the defendant on the unrelated charges.”
Establishes the general rule for jail credit eligibility when a defendant is held on multiple charges from different counties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDawson is serving a sentence for a probation violation. He sought credit for time served awaiting trial on an unrelated charge, arguing that a warrant…
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 Credit For Jail Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. We affirm.
The appellant is serving a sentence for a probation violation. The appellant claims that he is entitled to credit for time served awaiting trial on an unrelated charge because a warrant had been prepared for his violation of probation in the present case. A defendant is deemed to be in custody on separate warrants from different counties, and therefore entitled to jail credit on both convictions unless the defendant receives consecutive sentences, from the time the warrant is transmitted or issued to the county incarcerating the defendant on the unrelated charges. See Travis v. State, 724 So. 2d 119, 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Along with the standard allegations that must be made to present a facially sufficient claim for jail credit under rule 3.800(a), a defendant seeking credit in an unrelated ease must point to record evidence that the warrant was received by the other county. See Penny v. State, 778 So. 2d 305, 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Pearson v. State, 538 So. 2d 1349, 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Although the appellant attached a signed warrant, he pointed to no record evidence that the warrant was actu ally transmitted to and received by the other county, and the trial court determined that none existed in the record. In the absence of this information, the record does not show a clear entitlement to relief. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a); State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998).
Accordingly, the trial court is affirmed.
BARFIELD, WOLF, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hardenbrook v. State, 953 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…dant ‘is not entitled to have his. jail time credit pyramided by being given credit on each sentence for the full time he spends in jail awaiting disposition.’ ”) (quoting Martin v. State, 452 So. 2d 938, 938-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)); Dawson v. State, 816 So. 2d 1123, 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“A defendant is deemed to be in custody on separate warrants from different counties, and therefore entitled to jail credit on both convictions unless the defendant receives consecutive sentences ....”) (emphasis supplied)…
-
Cregg v. State, 43 So. 3d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ence was imposed after another sentence had expired. When a consecutive sentence is pronounced, the defendant is not entitled to credit for time served on an antecedent sentence. See Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543, 545 (Fla.1986); Dawson v. State, 816 So. 2d 1123, 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“A defendant is deemed to be in custody on separate warrants from different counties, and therefore entitled to jail credit on both convictions unless the defendant receives consecutive sentences [.] ” (emphasis supplied))…
-
Stevens v. State, 830 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Dawson v. State, 816 So. 2d 1123,1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). WEBSTER, DAVIS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Travis v. State, 724 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Pearson v. State, 538 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Penny v. State, 778 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)