RICHARD J. HAINES, 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.
Richard Haines appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motions seeking jail and prison credit. The court reversed and remanded because Haines' claims were facially sufficient and not refuted by the record, requiring the trial court to either award the credit or conclusively demonstrate he is not entitled to it.
The court held that Haines' jail and prison credit claims were facially sufficient and not refuted by the record. The trial court failed to attach records demonstrating either that previously awarded credit was for the same dates or that Haines was not otherwise entitled to additional credit. The court reversed and remanded, requiring the trial court to either award the credit or attach portions of the record conclusively demonstrating Haines is not entitled to relief.
[1] A defendant is entitled to jail credit for time spent incarcerated awaiting sentencing if the time served is not otherwise credited.
[2] A defendant is entitled to prison credit for time previously served when they violate the probationary portion of a split sentence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Appellant's jail-credit claim is facially sufficient because he alleges that he was arrested on these cases on September 4, 2001; held in the Suwannee County Jail from that arrest date until November 11, 2001, thus serving 59 days in jail; and sentenced on July 18, 2002, without receiving credit for such time.”
Establishes the standard for facial sufficiency of jail credit claims and the facts supporting Haines' claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHaines was originally sentenced in five consolidated cases in 1994, receiving three years incarceration followed by ten years probation in one case an…
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 Waiver Of Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the summary denial of his motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), by which he sought jail and prison credit. Because appellant’s claims appear to be facially sufficient and are not refuted by the record, we reverse.
Appellant was originally sentenced, pursuant to a single scoresheet, in case numbers 94-0011, 93-0177, 93-0184, 94-0007, and 94-0019. In case number 94-0011, he received three years of incarceration to be followed by ten years of probation. In the remaining cases, he received five-year probationary terms, to run concurrent with his probation in case number 94-0011. Appellant subsequently completed the in-carcerative portion of his sentence, and then violated probation. He was sentenced to concurrent four-year incarcera-tive terms in all cases.
Appellant’s jail-credit claim is facially sufficient because he alleges that he was arrested on these cases on September 4, 2001; held in the Suwannee County Jail from that arrest date until November 11, 2001, thus serving 59 days in jail; and sentenced on July 18, 2002, without receiving credit for such time. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998); Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
While the trial court stated that appellant had already been awarded an additional 56 to 62 days of jail credit (to which he was not, in fact, entitled) in all of these cases in response to an earlier motion to correct an illegal sentence, it failed to attach to its order any records demonstrating either that such credit was for the same dates or that appellant was not otherwise entitled to the credit.
Appellant’s claim for prison credit is also facially sufficient as to case number 94-0011 as a straight prison-credit claim because he alleged that he had served 987 days in prison before his release to probation on the probationary split sentence, and that his sentencing paperwork would show his entitlement to relief. See Smith v. State, 816 So. 2d 158, 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Defendants are entitled to prison credit for time previously served when they violate the probationary portion of a split sentence. See Layman v. State, 787 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Appellant’s claim to 987 days of prison credit, pursuant to Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993), for each offense in the remaining case numbers is facially sufficient because he was originally sentenced, using a single scoresheet, to incarceration followed by terms of probation and, upon revocation of probation, all sentences were made concurrent. See Burnett v. State, 745 So. 2d 1043, 1043-44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Singer v. State, 679 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Campbell v. State, 631 So. 2d 390, 390-91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
There is some indication in the record that appellant may have waived his right to jail and prison credit as part of a plea agreement.
However, the record is inadequate to establish conclusively that such a waiver occurred. Defendants may waive entitlement to previous jail or prison credit. See Griffin v. State, 838 So. 2d 1218, 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); State v. Richardson, 766 So. 2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
However, in the absence of such a waiver, the failure to award credit results in an illegal sentence. See Beshara v. State, 736 So. 2d 30, 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Such a waiver will not be presumed. See Robinson v. State, 827 So. 2d 345, 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Reed v. State, 810 So. 2d 1025, 1026-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Wells v. State, 751 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand. On remand, the trial court may either award additional jail and prison credit to which it concludes appellant is entitled, or attach to its order again denying relief those portions of the record which demonstrate conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
KAHN, WEBSTER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Briggs v. State, 929 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…award of jail time credit is mandatory under section 921.161, Florida Statutes, unless the record clearly shows that the defendant waived his or her entitlement to such credit. See Ryan v. State, 837 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Haines v. State, 851 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Further, a waiver of jail credit will not be presumed and the state has the burden to clearly establish a waiver occurred. See Ryan; Haines; Cozza v. State, 756 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Wells v. State, 751 So. 2d 703 (Fla.…
-
Murphy v. State, 930 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…for additional jail credit the denial of this claim was also error. Further, contrary to the state’s assertion, the record of the proceedings below do not evidence a clear and knowing waiver of entitlement to additional jail credit. Haines v. State, 851 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Reed v. State, 810 So. 2d 1025, 1026-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that the trial “court records must establish the defendant’s clear intent to waive a portion of his” accrued jail time in order to deny a facially sufficie…
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…credit by providing the dates for which he is seeking credit, providing the date of his sentence, alleging where in the record it can be shown that he is entitled to relief and alleging that he was held solely on Florida charges.”); Haines v. State, 851 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“Appellant’s claim for prison credit is also facially sufficient as to case number 94-0011 as a straight prison-credit claim because he alleged that he had served 987 days in prison before his release to probation on the pr…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (17 total)
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)
- Am. Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Gerda Jackson, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Kalishea Reed v. State, 810 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Shamus D. Layman v. State, 787 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- State v. Richardson, 766 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Dedeaire Griffin v. State, 838 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Davis v. State, 751 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Wells v. State, 751 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)