ROBERT J. AUMILLER, 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.
Aumiller appeals the denial of his motion for additional jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court summarily denied his motion, but the appellate court reversed because the record does not establish whether the Department of Corrections properly credited jail time from his original sentencing when he was resentenced after a probation violation.
The trial court's summary denial was reversed because whether the Department of Corrections properly included Aumiller's jail time credit in its calculations cannot be determined from the record. The case is remanded for the trial court to determine if DOC properly credited the county jail time between October 1993 and July 5, 1994.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a motion for additional jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) must be reversed and remanded if the record does n…
[2] When resentencing a defendant after a probation violation, a trial court's directive for the Department of Corrections to grant credit for all time previously served shou…
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“If DOC included the time that Aumiller spent in the county jail prior to his 1994 sentencing in its time-served calculation, then the trial court is correct. However, whether DOC included Aumiller's jail time credit in its calculations cannot be determined from the record before us.”
Establishes that the appellate court could not verify from the record whether the Department of Corrections properly credited the earlier jail time, making summary denial improper.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAumiller was sentenced on July 5, 1994, to twelve years in prison plus ten years probation, with 327 days of jail credit for pretrial detention. After…
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 Motion For Additional Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert J. Aumiller appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for additional jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of the motion and remand for further consideration.
On July 5, 1994, Aumiller was sentenced to twelve years in prison followed by ten years probation. After being released from prison, Aumiller violated his probation and was resentenced to seventeen years in prison with “credit for all Department of Corrections time previously served, together with credit for 109 days county jail served pending sentencing [on the violation of probation].” In his motion to correct sentence, Aumiller claims that *257while he was awarded 327 days of jail credit at the time of his 1994 sentencing, he was not awarded this jail credit when he was resentenced after violating his probation.
In denying Aumiller’s motion, the trial court concluded that its directive that the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) give Aumiller credit for all time previously served would have included any presen-tence jail credit. If DOC included the time that Aumiller spent in the county jail prior to his 1994 sentencing in its time-served calculation, then the trial court is correct. However, whether DOC included Aumiller’s jail time credit in its calculations cannot be determined from the record before us. Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of Aumil-ler’s rule 3.800 motion seeking additional credit and remand for further review of this matter. On remand, the trial court shall determine if DOC properly included the time that Aumiller spent in the county jail between October 1993 and his original sentencing on July 5, 1994, in calculating his jail time credit.1
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
GRIFFIN and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnes v. State, 74 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…erly award or order the DOC to grant Barnes credit for the 267 days that he spent in jail prior to the imposition of the probationary split sentence, and the DOC did not include such credit in Barnes’s time-served calculation. See Aumiller v. State, 14 So. 3d 256, 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); see also Sutton, 838 So. 2d at 617. Because the failure to grant proper jail credit would result in a manifest injustice, Barnes’s motion is not procedurally barred as successive. See Bronk v. State, 25 So. 3d 701, 703 (Fla…