JASON A. GILLESPIE, 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.
Jason Gillespie appeals a trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a). The court affirms, holding that the trial court properly denied jail time credit on consecutive sentences and that Gillespie's challenge to the Department of Corrections' interpretation of his sentence must be pursued through administrative remedies.
The trial court properly denied jail time credit on the consecutive sentences because jail credit earned on concurrent sentences need not be duplicatively applied to consecutive sentences. Additionally, challenges to the Department of Corrections' interpretation of a sentence, as distinct from the trial court's sentence itself, must be pursued through administrative remedies and mandamus relief, not Rule 3.800 motions.
[1] Jail time credit must be applied to each concurrent sentence, but need not be applied to all consecutive sentences.
[2] A defendant is entitled to credit for all time spent in county jail before sentencing.
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“When a defendant receives concurrent sentences, the credit must be applied to each of the concurrent sentences. See Daniels v. State, 491 So.2d 543 (Fla.1986). However, jail time credit need not be applied to all consecutive sentences.”
Establishes the rule that jail credit applies to concurrent sentences but need not be duplicated across consecutive sentences.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGillespie was convicted on two counts of arson and sentenced to two concurrent fifteen-year terms with 1166 days of jail time credit. He was also conv…
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
PALMER, J.
Jason Gillespie (defendant) appeals the trial court’s order denying his rule 3.800(a)1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Concluding that no error was committed by the trial court, we affirm.
The defendant was convicted on two counts of arson and sentenced to two concurrent terms of fifteen years’ incarceration with jail time credit of 1166 days. He was also convicted of committing the crimes of arson and burglary and sentenced to four terms of five years’ incarceration with no award of jail credit. Said terms were ordered to run consecutive to the sentences imposed on the arson charges, but concurrent with each other. The defendant filed a rule 3.800 motion asserting that he was entitled to receive 1166 days of jail credit on the arson and burglary sentences. The trial court properly denied the motion.
Section 921.161 of the Florida Statutes provides that a defendant is enti- tied to receive credit for all time spent in the county jail before sentencing. When a defendant receives concurrent sentences, the credit must be applied to each of the concurrent sentences. See Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986). However, jail time credit need not be applied to all consecutive sentences. See Bell v. State, 573 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
In the instant case, the trial court correctly awarded the defendant 1166 days jail time credit on the two concurrent sentences which were imposed on the arson crimes. Under the reasoning in Daniels and Bell, the trial court was not required to also award that same jail time credit to the remaining consecutive sentences imposed on the arson and burglary convictions. In fact, such an award would have resulted in an improper multiple award of credit.
The defendant also argues that the Department of Corrections (DOC) improperly structured his sentence to reflect a term of 25 years’ rather than 20 years’ imprisonment. However, this claim deals with DOC’s interpretation of the defendant’s sentence, not the trial court’s sentence itself. Therefore, the defendant must raise this claim by seeking administrative relief through the DOC. See Colson v. State, 830 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Killings v. State, 567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). While the defendant asserts that he has “tried several times” to rectify the problem with his classification officer and DOC’s main headquarters, he fails to allege that he has sought a proper administrative remedy or that the matter has been resolved and his remedies have been exhausted. As such, the proper remedy is for the defendant to seek mandamus relief in the circuit court after the administrative process through the DOC has been exhausted. See Duggan v. Dep’t. of Corrections, 665 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W. and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur. . See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(a).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Steadman v. State, 23 So. 3d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…fendant is only entitled to credit against one of the sentences.... ”); Bamishin, 927 So. 2d at 71 (“If convicted of multiple offenses, the defendant must be given [jail time] credit only on the first of consecutive sentences.”); Gillespie v. State, 910 So. 2d 322, 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[J]ail time credit need not be applied to all consecutive sentences.”). Consistent with established case law, Steadman received jail time credit on all concurrent sentences and did not receive credit on the consecutive sen…
-
Barbour v. State, 40 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…e case, he was not entitled to receive any additional jail credit. The trial court is correct that a defendant is not entitled to receive credit for time served on each sentence when the court imposes consecutive sentences. See Gillespie v. State, 910 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Howrever, the trial court did not attach any portion of the record to support its conclusion that Barbour had received jail credit on either of his sentences. Therefore, we remand this case for the attachment of portions of the…
-
Smith v. State, 52 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…credit for additional prison time from 2003 until March 26, 2005. Appellant must first seek administrative relief through the DOC before pursuing mandamus relief in the circuit court after the DOC process has been exhausted. See Gillespie v. State, 910 So. 2d 322, 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). In sum, we reverse and remand for the trial court to award Appellant forty-three days’ credit for his jail time in Lake County from February 18, 2009, to April 1, 2009, and for the trial court to attach the July 23, 2007,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1986)
- Forney v. State, 567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Killings v. State, 567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Bell v. State, 573 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Massengale v. RAY, 665 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Johnson v. State, 830 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Colson v. State, 830 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)