ALBERT SKIBA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Albert Skiba appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion for credit for time served prior to sentencing. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that Skiba was entitled to 812 days of credit for time served, and that he need not exhaust administrative remedies for pre-sentencing credit.
The court held that a defendant seeking credit for time served prior to sentencing need not exhaust administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections. Since the State conceded that Skiba was entitled to 812 days of credit for time served, the denial of his motion was reversed and the matter was remanded for entry of an order granting that credit.
[1] A defendant seeking credit for time served prior to sentencing is not required to exhaust administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections.
[2] A document is deemed filed by an inmate when it is placed in the hands of prison officials.
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“the defendant must exhaust administrative remedies in the Department of Corrections when seeking credit for time served after sentencing, not prior to sentencing”
Establishes the key legal distinction that administrative exhaustion is not required for pre-sentencing credit
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlbert Skiba was sentenced and sought post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) for additional credit for time served p…
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 Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant has filed a motion for rehearing and a motion to recall mandate. We grant the relief requested, recall the mandate dated July 26, 2002,1 withdraw our opinion dated July 10, 2002, and substitute the following opinion in its place.
The defendant, Albert Skiba, appeals from the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which he argued that he was entitled to additional credit for time served prior to sentencing. We reverse and remand for entry of an order granting the defendant a total of 812 days credit for time served.
The State argues that the defendant must exhaust administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections prior to seeking court relief. This is incorrect because the defendant seeks credit for time served prior to sentencing. See Ramos v. State, 823 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(holding that defendant must exhaust administrative remedies in the Department of Corrections when seeking credit for time served after sentencing, not prior to sentencing); Hidalgo v. State, 729 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In the instant case, the State has conceded that the defendant is entitled to a total of 812 days credit for time served. As such, the denial of the defendant’s motion is reversed, and this matter is remanded for entry of an order granting the defendant 812 days credit for time served.
Reversed and remanded.
. Following the issuance of the mandate, this Court received the defendant's motion for rehearing. The certificate of service indicates that the motion was furnished to authorities of the correctional institution's mailroom on July 18, 2002. As such, the defendant's motion was timely filed. See Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324, 326 (Fla.2000)(holding that "an inmate's document is deemed 'filed' when he or she places it in the hands of prison officials.”). Pursuant to Rule 9.340(b), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, "[i]f a timely motion for rehearing ... has been filed, the time for issuance of the mandate ... shall be extended until 15 days after rendition of the order denying the motion, or, if granted, until 15 days after the cause has been fully determined.” Therefore, mandate was prematurely entered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 839 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…l Procedure 3.800(a). To the extent that the motion requests credit for time served after sentencing, the order denying relief is affirmed without prejudice to the defendant to raise that issue with the Department of Corrections. See Skiba v. State, 827 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(concluding defendant must exhaust his administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial relief); Garcia v. State, 736 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(same); Hidalgo v. State, 729 So. 2d 984, 987(Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(same). With respec…
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2000)
- Hidalgo v. State, 729 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Ramos v. State, 823 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)