HAROLD R. LEIFFER, 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.
Harold Leiffer appeals the circuit court's denial of his motion to correct jail time credit for 69 days he was erroneously released from custody between March 14 and May 22, 2001. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over post-sentencing credit issues and that the motion was successive.
The circuit court properly denied Leiffer's motion because it lacked jurisdiction over post-sentencing credit issues, which must be pursued through administrative remedies followed by mandamus relief in Leon County Circuit Court. Additionally, the motion was successive, as the merits had been previously decided in a June 4, 2001 order.
[1] A circuit court lacks jurisdiction over a motion seeking post-sentencing jail time credit.
[2] A motion seeking post-sentencing jail time credit is properly dismissed if it is successive.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 circuit court correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction over this matter because the 69 days related to "post sentencing" credit”
Establishes the primary basis for affirming the denial: lack of jurisdiction over post-sentencing credit matters
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeiffer was initially sentenced on January 18, 2001. On March 9, 2001, the circuit court corrected his sentence to reflect 636 days of jail credit, nu…
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 Mandamus Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Leiffer appeals from the circuit court’s denial of his motion to correct “awarded jail time credit,” which the circuit court treated as a Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Leiffer seeks an additional 69 days of credit. We affirm.
The dates for which Leiffer seeks credit are March 14, 2001 through May 22, 2001. He was initially sentenced on January 18, 2001, and on March 9, 2001, the circuit court corrected his sentence to reflect 636 days of jail credit, nunc pro tunc, to January 18, 2001. He was then apparently released by mistake on March 14, 2001, and not returned to custody until May 22, 2001. He was not in custody for those 69 days. If the merits were to be addressed, it appears Leiffer is entitled to no relief.
However, there are two reasons this cause should be affirmed. First, the circuit court correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction over this matter because the 69 days related to “post sentencing” credit. See § 921.161(2), Fla. Stat. (2003).1 And second, this motion is successive.2 The order being appealed in this case was dated November 14, 2003. It stated that the circuit court had previously considered and ruled on the merits that Leiffer was not entitled to credit for the 69 days he was erroneously at liberty, and attached a copy of an order dated September 4, 2003. This order, in turn, referenced and attached a June 4, 2001 order which was filed in a prior proceeding, and provided a ruling on the merits for this issue. Although somewhat confusing the November order is in the nature of a corrected final order, because the September order may have been perceived as incomplete, as it failed to notify Leiffer of his right to appeal in 30 days.3 We see no error in treating the two orders as essentially one for purposes of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . For issues involving post-sentencing credit, a defendant must first exhaust his administrative remedies and then seek mandamus relief in the Circuit Court in Leon County, where DOC maintains its headquarters. See Washington v. State, 662 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Curry v. Wainwiight, 419 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003).
. Although the trial court in the November order advised Leiffer of his right to appeal within 30 days, this information is only required under Rule 3.850, not Rule 3.800(a). See Dunbar v. State, 688 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mendiola, 919 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…e trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to deal with the length or conditions of a defendant’s incarceration as to matters which arise after the sentence has begun; only the Department of Corrections has that authority. See Leiffer v. State, 867 So. 2d 538, 538 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Cordova v. State, 855 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Bostrom v. State, 732 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Reynolds, 590 So. 2d at 1044. But see Hester, 730 So. 2d at 748; Jones, 676 So. 2d at 84; Carson, 489 So. 2d a…
-
Willis v. State, 18 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…6) (a “trial court is only required to award credit for pre-sentence jail time; it is the function of the Department of Corrections to award credit for any time served in jail after sentencing but before transfer to state prison”); Leiffer v. State, 867 So. 2d 538, 538 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“For issues involving post-sentencing credit, a defendant must first exhaust his administrative remedies and then seek mandamus relief....”). AFFIRMED. PALMER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.…
-
Valdespino v. State, 209 So. 3d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…-sentencing credit, he may submit his request for this additional time to the DOC. If he is unsuccessful in obtaining the requested relief from the DOC, and he exhausts his administrative remedies, he may then seek mandamus relief. Leiffer v. State, 867 So. 2d 538, 538 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In reviewing the record, it appears that the defendant also sought relief under rule 3.800 with regards to the habitual felony offender sentences imposed. He claims that the predicate offenses relied on by the trial c…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Washington v. State, 662 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Curry v. Louie L. Wainwright, 419 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Dunbar v. State, 688 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)