JAMES YARBROUGH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion seeking prison credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. The appellant seeks two years of prison credit for the initial time served on the incarcerative portion of a split sentence.
A defendant is entitled to credit for time he has already served on the incarcerative portion of a split sentence. Pierson v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); See Corpus v. State, 744 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (noting that a defendant is entitled to prison credit for time already served in prison on the charges). The trial court failed to attach any documents, such as the written judgment and sentence, that conclusively establish that the appellant received two years of prison credit towards the sentences imposed in case numbers 90-3531, 90^4924, and 90-5261 for time previously served on those cases, or that the appellant is not entitled to such credit. Thus, we reverse the denial of the appellant’s motion and remand for the trial court to grant relief or attach documents refuting the appellant’s allegations. See Pierson.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyon Dale Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ce. The cases cited by the per curiam opinion show that we have previously adhered to an understanding that en banc matters would resolve important, and broadly applicable, questions of law, or harmonize the law in this district. See Pullo v. Pullo, 926 So. 2d 448, 449 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (invoking en banc process to resolve direct conflict between two panel opinions of court); Checkers Rest. v. Wiethoff, 925 So. 2d 348, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (invoking en banc process to clarify waiver provision of sec…1 / 2
-
NIX v. NIX, 930 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ent System. The early retirement penalty was a critical consideration in the supreme court’s decision in Boyett, and its absence in the present case would make the Boyett approach inequitable here. In accordance with our decision in Pullo v. Pullo, 926 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), we reject the appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s determination that the appellee will be entitled to an equitable share in any DROP proceeds, with the appellee’s share including interest accumulations and cost of living…
-
Williams v. Alphonso Williams, Sr., 935 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…law that the former husband’s DROP benefits are a non-marital asset and, therefore, are not subject to equitable distribution. After the trial court issued the final judgment of dissolution of marriage in the case at bar, we issued Pullo v. Pullo, 926 So. 2d 448, 451-52 (Fla. 1st DCA) (en banc), review dismissed, 933 So. 2d 1154 (Fla.2006), which compels reversal of that part of the final judgment designating the former husband’s DROP benefits as a non-marital asset not subject to equitable distribution. Se…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Corpus v. State, 744 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Pierson v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Shuler v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)