RANDY MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inmate Grievance Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed.
(concurring).
The trial court’s order is in error in stating that the motion to correct illegal sentence dated December 4, 2009, raises the same issue as an earlier rule 3.800(a) motion filed by defendant-appellant Martin on November 14, 2009.
In the current motion the defendant’s claim is that the Department of Corrections has not provided him with proper credit for prison time (not jail time) served between his original sentencing date of January 9, 1990 and the August 4, 1995 resentencing. However, the resentencing was nunc pro tunc to January 9, 1990, and the Department of Corrections’ calculation attached to the defendant’s motion appears to me to be correct. If the defendant believes it is not correct, then the defendant must exhaust his administrative remedies through the inmate grievance procedure in the Department of Corrections. See Salazar v. State, 892 So.2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
Because the correct result was reached by the trial court, I join the affirmance.
COPE, J.
(concurring).
The trial court’s order is in error in stating that the motion to correct illegal sentence dated December 4, 2009, raises the same issue as an earlier rule 3.800(a) motion filed by defendant-appellant Martin on November 14, 2009.
In the current motion the defendant’s claim is that the Department of Corrections has not provided him with proper credit for prison time (not jail time) served between his original sentencing date of January 9, 1990 and the August 4, 1995 resentencing. However, the resentencing was nunc pro tunc to January 9, 1990, and the Department of Corrections’ calculation attached to the defendant’s motion appears to me to be correct. If the defendant believes it is not correct, then the defendant must exhaust his administrative remedies through the inmate grievance procedure in the Department of Corrections. See Salazar v. State, 892 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
Because the correct result was reached by the trial court, I join the affirmance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 120 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…the sentence did not include credit between the original sentence and resen-tencing because the nunc pro tunc sentence imposed at resentencing made it clear the sentence was being served from the original sentencing date); see also Martin v. State, 31 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (Cope, J., concurring). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of appellant’s 3.800(a) motion without prejudice for him to pursue his administrative remedies with DOC if DOC did not properly calculate his time served. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- John DOE NO.1 v. Blunt, 892 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Salazar v. State, 892 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)