KIMBERLY ANN TINKER, 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 a defendant is entitled to jail credit for time served on all charges for which she received a sentence, even if a clerical error on the warrant only listed one case number.
The defendant was on probation for two cases but a clerical error listed only one case number on the arrest warrant. She admitted to violating probati…
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 Clerical Error cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Kimberly Ann Tinker challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying her request for jail credit pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. An af fidavit of violation of probation was filed against Tinker bearing the ease numbers of both cases for which Tinker was serving probation. However, it appears that due to a clerical error, only one of the case numbers appeared on the arrest warrant. Therefore, Tinker was technically taken into custody on only one of the cases and, at sentencing, received credit for time served only in the one case.
Our review of the record indicates that she was arraigned on the affidavit for both cases at the same arraignment hearing, admitted to violating the terms of both probation orders at the same court appearance, and was sentenced for both violations on the same day based on a single score-sheet. The order finding the violation of probation contained both case numbers, and the trial court imposed the same sentence for each case, the sentences to be served concurrently.
Although Tinker was entitled to credit against each sentence she received for the time she spent in jail on the charge leading to the sentence, see Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), due to the mistake on the warrant, the trial court only credited her with the time she spent in jail on one of the violations. This was error. Accordingly, we conclude that Tinker was actually being held for violating her probation in both cases and, but for the mistake on the warrant, would have received credit for the time she served in jail awaiting the disposition of the cases on both case numbers. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Tinker the credit and remand with instructions to grant the relief requested.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
White v. State, 940 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…if White was in custody in Highlands County Jail during the alleged time periods in cases 03-000727CFMA, 03-000794CFMA, and 03-000821CFMA, as well as the misdemeanor [*1166] cases, White would be entitled to credit in each case. See Tinker v. State, 870 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that defendant was entitled to jail credit in two cases where defendant was being held for violating her probation in both cases). Although the record attached to the posteon-vietion court’s order indicates White was in c…
-
Gonzalez v. State, 17 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ed to credit in each of these cases for the time he spent in jail awaiting the disposition of his community control violation. See White v. State, 940 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Seay v. State, 928 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Tinker v. State, 870 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse the post-conviction court’s denial of Gonzalez’s motion and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. WALLACE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.…
-
Milligan v. State, 88 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…was in custody for violating probation in both cases, he is entitled to credit in both cases for the time he spent in jail between July 25, 2007, and October 16, 2007. See Gonzalez v. State, 17 So. 3d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Tinker v. State, 870 So. 2d 79, 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s denial of Milligan’s motion and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. WHATLEY and LaROSE, JJ„ Con…
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
- Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)