WILLIE JAMES MITCHUM, 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.
The court held that the trial court has the responsibility to determine and provide for jail credit in the written sentence, even if the credit is technically granted.
Appellant sought jail credit for 141 days of pre-trial detention, which was orally pronounced but omitted from the written sentence. The trial court 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 Fla. Stat. § 921.161(1) Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Willie James Mitchum [“Mitchum”], appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion for jail credit. He claims that he is entitled to 141 days credit against his sentence for his pre-trial detention in Sumter County Jail. Although the court orally pronounced this credit, the written sentence did not provide for it.
The trial court denied Mitchum’s motion, on the ground that the Sumter County Jail had prepared a certificate verifying the 141 days claimed by him, and the certificate had been transmitted to the Florida Department of Corrections. The trial court indicated that a copy of the certificate would be attached to the order, but there was no such attachment. The State, in responding to this appeal, attached a copy of the certificate in which the Sheriff of Sumter County certified that Mitchum was incarcerated in jail from April 19, 2002, until his sentence on September 6, 2002, for a total of 141 days.
Although this is a purely technical point, and the trial court’s denial of the motion appears not to have prejudiced Mitchum, we are bound to reverse because it is the responsibility of the trial court to determine the amount of jail credit and to provide for it in the written sentence. See Martin v. State, 799 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). See also State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998); § 921.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2002) (court in imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time spent in the county jail before sentence; the credit must be for a specified period of time and shall be provided for in the sentence).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PETERSON, GRIFFIN, and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Long v. State, 202 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…e motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B). Long argues and the State concedes that the sentences failed to specify the amount of jail credit to which Long is entitled as required by section 921.161, Florida Statutes (2013). See Mitchum v. State, 846 So. 2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). At resentencing, the. trial court announced that Long was to be awarded credit for any time to which he was legally entitled. Each written sentence states only that the defendant is to receive jail credit but does not spec…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Rydell Delarion Hopkins v. State, 799 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Delbert Martin v. State, 799 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)