ENRIQUE LEBRON A/K/A RICKY SOSA, 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.
Enrique Lebrón appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). While affirming the denial of the claims raised in his motion, the court identified a patent illegality: the trial court had reduced Lebrón's jail credit from 344 days to 96 days, which violated established precedent prohibiting rescission of previously awarded jail credits.
The court affirmed the denial of Lebrón's motion to correct illegal sentence on the claims raised therein, but identified a patent illegality requiring correction: the trial court cannot rescind previously awarded jail credits, even if the initial award was improper. The judgment must be corrected to reflect the original 344 days of jail credit awarded.
[1] A trial court may not rescind jail credit previously awarded, even if the initial award was improper.
[2] Discrepancies in Department of Corrections records regarding incarceration must be corrected by the State issuing new commitment papers.
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“this court has repeatedly held that a trial court may not rescind jail credit previously awarded even if the initial award was improper”
Establishes the core legal principle that trial courts lack authority to reduce previously awarded jail credits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLebrón's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to twelve years in prison in case number 91-10877. Upon sentencing, he was awarded 344 days of jai…
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 Rescission Of Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
Enrique Lebrón, a/k/a Ricky Sosa, appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). While we affirm the denial of the claims raised in Lebroris motion, we note that there is apparently a lingering discrepancy in the Department of Corrections’ records concerning the judgments under which Le-brón is incarcerated.
The record shows that Lebron’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to twelve years in prison in case number 91-10877 only.
Therefore, to the extent that the Department of Corrections’ records show that Lebrón is also currently incarcerated for the charges in case number 91-10505, those records are incorrect.
We note that the trial court ordered the State to issue new commitment papers to ensure that this discrepancy was corrected; however, no such papers appear in our record. On remand, the State must ensure that this has been accomplished.
In addition, this court’s review of the record has revealed a patent illegality in Lebroris sentence that requires correction.1 When Lebrón was sentenced on the revocation of probation in case number 91-10877, he was awarded 344 days of jail credit. One month later, the trial court sua sponte “amended” the judgment and sentence and issued a clerk’s certificate showing only 96 days of jail credit.
However, this court has repeatedly held that a trial court may not rescind jail credit previously awarded even if the initial award was improper. See, e.g., Platt v. State, 827 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Bailey v. State, 777 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Linton v. State, 702 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for it to correct the judgment and sentence and the clerk’s certificate to reflect the 344 days of jail credit initially awarded. Affirmed, but remanded for correction of jail credits.
SALCINES and KELLY, JJ., Concur. . Lebrón raised this issue in the trial court by way of a "motion to clarify award of jail credits.” The trial court granted this motion and issued an order stating that the 96 days of jail credit were correct. Lebrón did not appeal from this order. If we do not address this error, Lebrón could file a renewed motion to correct illegal sentence in the trial court, which would not be deemed successive. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003). However, because Lebrón would be entitled to release in January 2004 if his jail credits are corrected, we address this patent illegality in this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Wheeler v. State, 880 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…credit for Count II that was previously awarded. The trial court summarily denied the appellant’s motion. A trial court may not sua sponte rescind jail credit previously awarded at any time even if the initial award was improper. Lebron v. State, 870 So. 2d 165, (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Linton v. State, 702 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). “[T]o increase the penalty is to subject the defendant to double punishment for the same offense in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no…
-
Stang v. State, 24 So. 3d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…pardy rights. This court and others have repeatedly held that a trial court may not rescind jail credit that was previously awarded, even if the initial award was improper, because such an action violates double jeopardy. See, e.g., Lebron v. State, 870 So. 2d 165, 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Linton v. State, 702 So. 2d 236, 236-37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Wheeler v. State, 880 So. 2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); but see Gallinat v. State, 941 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding no double jeopardy violation if…
-
Gallinat v. State, 941 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ion of the prohibition against double jeopardy. The Second District announced this rule in Gilmore v. State, 523 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), and has followed it consistently. See King v. State, 913 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Lebron v. State, 870 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Platt v. State, 827 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Keene v. State, 826 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Linton v. State, 702 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The First District, citing Le-brón and Linton, has also followed the rule.…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 17 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)
- Linton v. State, 702 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Platt v. State, 827 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Swan v. State, 777 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- M.R. v. State, 777 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)