TODD R. JEWETT, 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.
Appellant's sentence was illegal because DOC relied on an April 19, 1994 sentencing order that contradicted the trial court's March 8, 1994 order vacating the original sentence and resentencing appellant to nine years without probation; the court reversed and remanded for vacation of the illegal sentence.
An illegal sentencing order used by the Department of Corrections to calculate forfeiture of gain time must be vacated and the trial court must provide DOC with the correct sentencing documents for recalculation.
[1] A sentencing order that contradicts a prior trial court order vacating and resentencing a defendant is illegal and must be vacated, with the trial court required to provi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant moved to correct an illegal sentence claiming improper jail credit. The Department of Corrections had applied a forfeiture of gain time base…
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 Sentencing Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant moved to correct an illegal sentence, claiming that he had been denied the proper jail credit. What he actually complains of is the Department of Corrections application of a forfeiture of gain time. The underlying issue, however, is whether appellant was on probation for count I of Case No. 93-192 when he violated probation imposed for other crimes.
The trial court has already ruled that he was not. What is disconcerting is that the state reports that DOC apparently has a copy of an April 19, 1994 sentence that does not appear in the court file, which it used to calculate the forfeiture of gain time. In that sentence, appellant was given nine years imprisonment and twenty years probation for a second degree felony. This was contrary to the March 8, 1994 stipulated order vacating the original sentence and resentencing appellant to nine years in prison with no probation. The state concedes that the April 19 sentence is illegal. We therefore reverse and remand for vacation of the April 19 sentencing order.
The trial court should furnish DOC with a copy of the order vacating that sentence so that it can recalculate forfeiture of gain time in accordance with correct sentencing documents.
WARNER, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.