FRANCISCO J. SALAZAR, 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.
Francisco Salazar appealed the trial court's summary denial of his motion requesting credit for 145 days of jail time from his three 2006 probation violation cases against his 2008 sentence. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that defendants receiving concurrent sentences for different cases are entitled to jail time credit only against the sentence for the charge resulting in that particular incarceration period, not against all concurrent sentences.
When a defendant receives concurrent sentences for different cases, the defendant is entitled to jail time credit against each sentence only for the time spent in jail for the charge resulting in that particular sentence. Therefore, Salazar was not entitled to apply his 145 days of credit from the 2006 cases to his 2008 sentence.
[1] A defendant challenging the Department of Corrections' calculation of jail time credit must first exhaust administrative remedies with the department before seeking judic…
[2] When a defendant receives concurrent sentences for different cases, credit is awarded against each sentence only for the time spent in jail for the charge resulting in th…
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“when a defendant receives concurrent sentences for different cases, the defendant is entitled to credit against each sentence only for the time spent in jail for the charge resulting in that sentence”
Establishes the core legal principle that jail time credit is case-specific and cannot be transferred between concurrent sentences.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSalazar was sentenced concurrently in February 2008 for four cases: three violation of probation cases from 2006 and one case from 2008. He received 1…
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 Jail Credit Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Francisco J. Salazar (Defendant) appeals the summary denial of his motion, in which he asked the trial court which sentenced him to order the Department of Corrections to award him 145 days of jail time credit, the amount of credit he received on his three violation of probation cases, also against his 2008 case. He was sentenced concurrently in February 2008 for all four cases, but complained that the department had credited him with only 41 days for the 2008 case, and did not credit him with the 145 days credit he was awarded in connection with the three 2006 cases. We affirm.
Technically, the trial court should not have addressed the merits of the motion, but should have dismissed it. Defendant’s proper vehicle for challenging the department’s failure to credit him with the proper amount of jail time credit was first to exhaust his administrative remedies with the department, and then, if unsuccessful, to seek extraordinary relief from the Leon County circuit court. See Bush v. State, 945 So. 2d 1207, 1213-14 (Fla.2006) (holding the department is entitled to litigate in the circuit court in Leon County, where its central office is located); Grace v. State, 920 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
In denying the motion, the trial court correctly explained to Defendant that he was not entitled to the same number of days of credit for each case with concurrent sentences which bear different arrest dates; instead, when a defendant receives concurrent sentences for different cases, the defendant is entitled to credit against each sentence only for the time spent in jail for the charge resulting in that sentence. E.g., James v. State, 721 So. 2d 1265, 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Walker v. State, 579 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Because remanding with directions that the trial court dismiss the motion would not serve the cause of judicial economy, we simply affirm. Compare Richardson v. State, 918 So. 2d 999, 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (affirming, for the sake of judicial economy, instead of remanding improper denial of habeas corpus petition, where proper disposition was dismissal).
Affirmed.
SHAHOOD, C.J., POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colon v. State, 199 So. 3d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). “[W]hen a defendant receives concurrent sentences for different cases, the defendant is entitled to credit against each sentence only for the time spent in jail for the charge resulting in that sentence.” Salazar v. State, 995 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Here, the DOC considered the sentence with the least jail credit (one day) as the primary sentence for determining a release date. Thus, appellant was not given jail credit for the nearly two years he had already served. C…
-
Watson v. State, 51 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ct illegal sentence. In that event, the appellant’s remedy would be to pursue any administrative remedies he may have with the Department of Corrections if the Department is refusing to provide him with the proper amount of credit. Salazar v. State, 995 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Therefore, we remand for the circuit court to review the sentencing order from the 1998 case and enter a new order on the appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to one of the two options described in the…
-
Hirschman v. State, 86 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Salazar v. State, 995 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). SAWAYA, PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.…
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
- Corbblin Bush v. State, 945 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2006)
- Richardson v. State, 918 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Walker v. State, 579 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- James v. State, 721 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Gibson v. State, 920 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Grace v. State, 920 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)