JOEL A. SANTIAGO, 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 erred in denying a motion for additional jail credit based on an incorrect calculation of days served.
Santiago was sentenced in two cases and received jail credit. He claimed he should have received more credit in one case. The trial court denied his m…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
Santiago appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of .his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), seeking additional jail credit time against his sentences in two different criminal cases. See generally, State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998). We remand for further proceedings with regard to one ease.
The record establishes that Santiago was sentenced in Orange County Circuit Case No. 01-16602 on April 18, 2002, to four years in prison, followed by two years on probation, with jail credit of 133 days. On the same day, he was sentenced in Orange County Circuit Case No. 02-1493 to four .years in prison, followed by two years on probation, with jail credit of 71 days. The sentences were to be served concurrently. Santiago asserts he was incarcerated from December 18, 2001 through April 18, 2002 in Case No. 02-1493, and therefore should have received 122 days jail credit time on that sentence.
In denying relief, the trial court ruled that Santiago received 133 days credit in both cases, and attached the judgments and sentences for both. The sentence in Case No. 02-1493 supports Santiago’s allegation that he received only 71 days jail credit. The state concedes error in this regard.
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying relief and remand this cause to the trial court to reconsider Santiago’s claim for additional jail credit. The court should determine1 and award additional jail credit in Case No. 02-1493, or attach documents which establish he is not entitled to any additional jail credit on that sentence, on the face of the record.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, CJ and GRIFFIN, J., concur. . The state points out there is a conflict on the face of the record, as Santiago alleges he was arrested in that case on December 18, 2001, while the trial court found he had been arrested on December 7, 2001.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005)…sanctions for serious abuses.” Tramel v. Bass, 672 So. 2d 78, 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). . The State conceded error in the following opinions published since the beginning of 2004: Brown v. State, 893 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Santiago v. State, 893 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Washington v. State, 890 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); King v. State, 891 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Card v. State, 889 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Walker v. State, 886 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Long v. State,…
-
Elias v. State, 906 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…jail credit in that case. The court should determine and award additional jail credit in case number F00-31396, or attach documents that establish on the face of the record that Elias is not entitled to any additional jail credit. Santiago v. State, 893 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). We affirm on all other grounds. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)