BRIAN WILSON, 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.
Brian Wilson appealed the denial of his postconviction motion for additional credit for time served. The trial court had promised him credit for "all time served" in his plea agreement but only awarded 46 days. The appellate court reversed, finding the judge made a calculation error and remanded for the trial court to determine and award the proper total credit for all time served.
The court held that Wilson is entitled to credit for all time served as contemplated by the plea agreement. The trial court made an error in calculation by only crediting time from February 1st rather than all time the defendant had been incarcerated. The court remanded for the trial court to determine and award the correct total credit for all time served.
[1] A plea agreement that contemplates credit for all time served is enforceable, and a subsequent miscalculation by the court does not negate the agreement's terms.
[2] A defendant is entitled to credit for all time served when the plea agreement explicitly provides for such credit, even if the court erroneously calculates the duration.
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“Twice during the plea colloquy, the court stated that the defendant would receive credit for all time served.”
Establishes the core promise made in the plea agreement regarding credit for time served
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson entered a plea agreement admitting to a violation of probation in exchange for a four-year sentence with credit for all time served. The trial …
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 Plea Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of an order denying the motion of Brian Wilson for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 claiming entitlement to additional credit for time served.* We remand for further proceedings.
The defendant entered into a plea agreement wherein he admitted to a violation of probation in exchange for a four year sentence with credit for all time served. Twice during the plea colloquy, the court stated that the defendant would receive credit for all time served. At the conclusion of the plea colloquy and after defendant was sentenced, the judge, in response *523to a question, said, “You have been sentenced to four years in state prison with credit for all time served which will be from February what?” In response, the corrections officer stated “February 1st.” Thereafter, the court stated, “From February 1st to the present day you will receive credit for all that time that you have been incarcerated.” The court then awarded defendant 46 days credit for jail time. In reality, however, the defendant was previously incarcerated on the same cases.
In his Rule 3.850 motion, the defendant claims he is entitled to a total of 274 days credit for time served. The trial court denied relief, and the defendant has appealed.
When the plea agreement was accepted by the court, the court twice said the defendant would receive credit for all time served. At the conclusion of the plea colloquy, the court made an erroneous assumption that the calculation should be performed for the time defendant was in custody since February. In reality, defendant had been incarcerated at earlier stages of the case and under the plea agreement was entitled to credit for all time served.
We distinguish Joyner v. State, 988 So.2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), Johnson v. State, 974 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), and Hines v. State, 906 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). In those cases, the negotiated plea agreements called for credit for time served from a date certain. Where that is the case, the plea agreement is enforceable as such a contract amounts to a waiver of time served prior to a negotiated date. In this case, the agreement contemplated credit for all time served. The judge simply made an error in calculation. Therefore, we remand with instructions to the trial court to determine, and award, the total amount of credit for all time served. In light of this ruling, the defendant’s second point is moot.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. State, 99 So. 3d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…encing intent, we conclude that the Mathis and Toombs line of cases do not apply. Thus, the proper remedy on remand in this case is a recalculation of the total days served and credit for the time served on the instant sentence. See Wilson v. State, 13 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (finding that where the trial court awards all credit for time served but miscalculates it, the proper remedy is to correct the miscalculation). We instruct the trial court to expedite the recalculation of credit for time served…
Authorities Cited
- Joyner v. State, 988 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Hines v. State, 906 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Johnson v. State, 974 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)