HECTOR J. RUIZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 defendant's motion, though styled as one for clarification, was in essence a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and the trial court erred in denying it without addressing the merits.
The defendant sought credit for time served prior to probation revocation, which was not reflected in the sentencing orders. The trial court denied hi…
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 Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
CORTINAS, Judge.
The defendant, Hector J. Ruiz, appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for clarification. The defendant filed his motion for clarification requesting that the trial court amend the sentencing orders in his cases to reflect that he should be awarded credit for prison time served prior to his revocation of probation. The trial court denied the motion for clarification, stating that it was “not aware of a Motion for Clarification in the Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
However, as the State concedes, the defendant’s motion for clarification is, in essence, a motion to correct an illegal sentence and award credit for time served pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Although the plea and sentencing hearing transcripts demonstrate that the trial court properly awarded credit for time served, the trial court, in its sentencing orders, did not check the box indicating that the defendant is to be awarded credit for time he previously served in prison in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The State concedes that the defendant should be awarded credit for time served.
Accordingly, we remand this matter with instructions that the trial court check the box awarding prison time credit pursuant to section 921.161, Florida Statutes (2005). In so doing, the trial court should not specify the number of days of prison time credit to be awarded.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hogan v. State, 12 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…2d 197, 199-200 (Fla.2004). Thus, even if the State had not filed the motions years late, nothing in rule 3.800 authorized a motion for rehearing or a motion for clarification when the judges entered their orders in 2000 and 2002. In Ruiz v. State, 927 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), the defendant appealed from an order denying his motion for clarification. The motion requested an amendment of his sentencing orders to reflect credit for prison time served before the revocation of his probation. The Third Dist…