VASHON INGRAM, 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.
Appellant's Rule 3.800 motion for additional jail credit was properly denied, but the trial court failed to address his prison credit claim, which must be remanded for consideration under Tripp v. State because he is entitled to prior prison credit for time served on the first offense when sentenced simultaneously for both offenses.
A defendant sentenced simultaneously for multiple offenses is entitled to prior prison credit for time served on the first offense when he violated probation for the second offense, and such claims are cognizable under Rule 3.800.
[1] A defendant sentenced simultaneously for multiple offenses is entitled to prior prison credit for time served on the first offense when he violated probation for the seco…
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 intelligenceAppellant filed a Rule 3.800 motion claiming he did not receive proper prison and jail credit time. The trial court denied the jail credit claim but d…
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 Sentencing Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant filed a rule 3.800 motion claiming that he did not receive his proper prison and jail credit time. The trial court correctly determined that the appellant was not entitled to any additional jail credit and as to that part of the order on appeal, we affirm.
The issue of prison credit time was not addressed in the trial court’s order. The record does not reflect the actual amount of time served. Pursuant to Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993), the appellant is entitled to prior prison credit for time served on the first offense when he violated probation for the second offense, since he was sentenced for both at the same time. See also Hodgdon v. State, 789 So. 2d 958 (Fla.2001). Under the holding of State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998), a defendant is entitled to the credit as a matter of law and such a claim is cognizable under rule 3.800.
We therefore reverse and remand the matter to the trial court to consider that portion of the appellant’s claim and to grant relief if the sentence is illegal, or to deny the relief, sought and attach to its order portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
WOLF, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hardenbrook v. State, 953 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…438 (Fla.1994) (“We ... conclude that Cook should have been credited with the four and a half years he served for the 1990 offenses when he was sentenced in 1991 for violating his probation on the 1989 offenses for a second time”); Ingram v. State, 818 So. 2d 636, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“Pursuant to Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993), the appellant is entitled to prior prison credit for time served on the first offense when he violated probation for the second offense, since he was sentenced for bot…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)
- Hodgdon v. State, 789 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2001)