ROBERT L. DORMINEY, 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.
Robert Dorminey appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), raising three claims regarding sentencing credit. The court affirmed the denial of his first claim but reversed and remanded for consideration of his remaining two claims regarding prison credit and jail credit.
The court held that time served on probation cannot be credited toward a new prison sentence for violation of probation, but claims for prison credit are cognizable under rule 3.800(a) and must be considered on remand. The court also held that the trial court must address Dorminey's claim regarding jail credit in light of the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Gethers v. State.
[1] Time served on the probation portion of a split sentence cannot be credited against a new prison sentence imposed for violation of probation.
[2] Claims for prison credit are cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
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“credit for time served on the probation portion of a split sentence cannot be applied against a new prison sentence imposed on the violation of probation”
Establishes the legal principle supporting affirmance of the first claim denial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1991, Dorminey was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to five years in prison followed by five years' probation for grand theft of a motor veh…
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 Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Robert L. Dorminey appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Dorminey raises three claims. We affirm the denial of claim one, but we reverse and remand as to the remaining two claims.
In 1991, Dorminey was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to a split sentence of five years in prison followed by five years’ probation on a charge of grand theft of a motor vehicle. After serving the prison portion of the sentence, Dorminey was placed on probation. He subsequently violated the probation and was sentenced to one year and one day in prison with jail credit for 161 days.
Dorminey first claims that the time he served on probation must be credited toward his violation of probation sentence. The circuit court correctly denied this claim because credit for time served on the probation portion of a split sentence cannot be applied against a new prison sentence imposed on the violation of probation. See Young v. State, 697 So. 2d 75 (Fla.1997). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of this claim.
Dorminey also seeks credit for the time he served on the prison portion of the split sentence. He contends he would be entitled to immediate release if awarded the proper amount of prison credit. The circuit court stated that such a claim is not within its province. We disagree. Claims for prison credit are cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See Wiggins v. State, 817 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the circuit court to expeditiously consider. Dorminey’s claim for prison credit.
Last, Dorminey claims that he is entitled to additional jail credit because he was arrested on the Hillsborough County violation of probation warrant on March 6, 2002, in Duval County. The trial court recites an arrest date of April 4, 2002, and attaches records from Hillsborough County but fails to address Dorminey’s claim regarding the arrest in Duval County. Therefore, we reverse and remand for consideration of this claim in light of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Gethers v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly S44 (Fla. Jan. 16, 2003).
In his initial brief on appeal, Dorminey raises several claims that were not raised in his motion to the circuit court. We decline to address them. However, our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Dorminey may have to raise these claims in a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pollock v. State, 962 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…for prison time served from June 1, 1993, to June 1, 1994. As the State properly concedes, claims regarding the correct amount of prison credit upon resentencing are cognizable in a 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. See Dorminey v. State, 837 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Since the trial court did not address this issue in Pollock’s motion or attach documentation that conclusively refutes Pollock’s claim to such credit, we must reverse and remand this portion of the order for further proceedings.…
Authorities Cited
- Young v. State, 697 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1997)
- Wiggins v. State, 817 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)