EDWARD HUGHES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2006-05-10
Nos. 4D05-529, 4D05-530, 4D05-701
STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.
927 So. 2d 1040 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2006) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Edward Hughes appeals his sentences for violations of community control, arguing he should receive credit for the time he served on community control before the violations were charged. The appellate court agrees and reverses, holding that when a trial court imposes a new sentence following probation revocation that includes probation as part of the sanction, the defendant must receive credit for any time previously served on probation.


Holding

Yes. The trial court must give credit for time previously served on community control when imposing a new sentence following probation revocation, if the new period of probation together with other sanctions and the time previously served on probation totals more than the statutory maximum for the underlying offense. Hughes is entitled to credit for the 91 days he served on community control.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court must grant credit for time served on community control when imposing a sentence following a revocation of that control, if the total sanctions, including pr…

[2] When imposing a sentence after revoking probation, the combined sanctions, including any new probation, jail time, prison credit, and time previously served on probation,…

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“If the trial court includes probation as part of a sentence upon revocation of probation, the trial court must give credit for any time previously served on probation if the new period of probation together with other sanctions (including jail and prison credit) and the time previously served on probation total more than the statutory-maximum for the underlying offense.”

Establishes the controlling legal standard for when credit must be given for time served on probation during revocation sentencing

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Hughes pleaded nolo contendere to two drug charges in July 2004 and received sentences of two years community control followed by three years probatio…

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.


Opinion of the Court
MAY, J.

MAY, J.

The defendant appeals his sentences on violations of community control. He argues the trial court erred in failing to give him credit for the time served on community control before the violations. We agree and reverse.

On July 28, 2004, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendré in case number 04-8197 to possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. On the same day, the defendant entered another plea of nolo con-tendré in case number 04-6005 to possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. In both cases, the trial court sentenced him to two years of community control followed by three years of drug offender probation.

The defendant began his community control sentences on July 28, 2004. On October 28, 2004, the State charged the defendant with new charges of possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia in case number 04-17528. Three days later, affidavits of violation were filed in the two earlier cases.

On the two violations of community control and the new substantive charge, the trial court sentenced the defendant to 38.1 months in state prison followed by two years drug offender probation. The combined sentence was 62.1 months. The defendant appealed his sentences on the three cases. We consolidated the appeals.

After filing the notices of appeal, but before filing his initial briefs, the defendant filed a motion to correct sentencing error. He argued his 62.1 month sentence violated the statutory maximum sentence for possession of cocaine and asked the trial court to reduce his probationary term by 2.1 months. He also requested credit for the months served on community control prior to his violation. The trial court reduced the defendant’s sentence to 38.1 months in state prison followed by 21.9 months probation to conform to the 60-month maximum allowable sentence, but did not give the defendant credit for the time served on community control.

On appeal, the defendant continues to argue he is entitled to credit for the months served on community control. The State concedes the point. Our supreme court has stated:

In imposing a sentence following a revocation of probation, the combination of [new] sanctions imposed must not exceed the statutory maximum for the underlying offense. If the trial court includes probation as part of a sentence upon revocation of probation, the trial court must give credit for any time previously served on probation if the new period of probation together with other sanctions (including jail and prison credit) and the time previously served on probation-total more than the statutory-maximum for the underlying offense.

Waters v. State, 662 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla.1995) (quoting Bragg v. State, 644 So. 2d 586, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)); see also Meader v. State, 665 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

Possession of cocaine is a third degree felony for which the maximum term of imprisonment is five years. §§ 893.13(6)(a), 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2004). His current sentences require him to serve 38.1 months in state prison followed by 21.9 months probation, totaling five years. However, the defendant has already served 91 days on community control. The defendant must be given credit for those 91 days.

Reversed and Remanded.

STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Abedelkader Dawudi v. State, 20 So. 3d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
    …on v. State, 942 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of this motion insofar as Dawudi sought credit for 147 days spent on probation, however. See Waters v. State, 662 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1995); Hughes v. State, 927 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The State filed a response in this Court agreeing that the trial court erred on this point. We remand to the trial court to either award the requested credit of 147 days or to attach portions of the record to a new order of deni…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw