STEVEN ROBERTS, 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.
Steven Roberts appealed the summary denial of his motion for additional jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming he was entitled to 29 additional days of credit. The court reversed and remanded, finding the lower court misinterpreted the custody records by using the official charge date rather than the initial arrest date.
The court held that custody should be calculated from the date of initial arrest rather than the date of formal charging. Because the record was contradictory, the court reversed and remanded for the postconviction court to either attach portions of the record refuting Roberts' claims or grant the additional 29 days of jail credit.
[1] A defendant is entitled to jail credit from the date of initial arrest on underlying offenses, even if formal charges in a specific case are filed later.
[2] A postconviction court must either attach record portions conclusively refuting a defendant's jail credit claim or grant the requested credit.
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“Mr. Roberts is entitled to credit against each sentence only for the time actually spent in jail on the charge leading to that sentence.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle governing jail credit awards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoberts was arrested on January 7, 2010, and remained in custody until sentencing on September 14, 2010, in case number 10-CF-02670. He was initially …
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
Steven Roberts appeals the summary denial of his motion for additional jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Mr. Roberts claimed that he is entitled to an additional twenty-nine days of jail credit in case number 10-CF-02670.
On September 14, 2010, Mr. Roberts was sentenced in case number 10-CF-02670 to concurrent terms of thirty months’ imprisonment and twenty-four months’ probation and awarded 222 days of jail credit. Mr. Roberts subsequently filed this motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a), alleging that he should have been awarded a total of 251 days of jail credit. In its order, the postconviction court noted that Mr. Roberts is entitled to credit against each sentence only for the time actually spent in jail on the charge leading to that sentence. See White v. State, 940 So.2d 1165, 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Keene v. State, 500 So.2d 592, 593 (Fla. 2d DCA *12861986). Relying on records indicating that Mr. Roberts was charged in case number 10-CF-02670 on February 5, 2010, the postconviction court held that Mr. Roberts had received the proper amount of jail credit.
In his brief, Mr. Roberts challenges this finding by claiming that the postconviction judge, who was also the sentencing judge, misinterpreted the records. In support of this argument, Mr. Roberts points out that the record indicates that he was taken into custody on January 7, 2010, and remained there until sentencing. Furthermore, he claims that this arrest was for offenses that were later enhanced or amended to create case number 10-CF-02670. Therefore, even if he was not officially charged in that case until February 5, 2010, he was taken into custody on the underlying offenses nearly a month earlier. Mr. Roberts correctly argues that custody of a defendant should be considered from the date of his initial arrest. See Bronk v. State, 25 So.3d 701, 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Finally, the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office report supports Mr. Roberts’ assertions. The report lists a total of thirteen charges brought against Mr. Roberts on January 7, 2010, including charge four, which was incorporated into case number 10-CF-02670.
Due to the contradictory nature of the records in this case, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Mr. Roberts’ claims or grant Mr. Roberts an additional twenty-nine days of jail credit in case number 10-CF-02670.
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY, LaROSE, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zamora v. State, 96 So. 3d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…it was part of the same single criminal episode as the other three counts on which he was sentenced and for which he received the correct amount of jail credit. See Johnson v. State, 978 So. 2d 872, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also Roberts v. State, 64 So. 3d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Bronk v. State, 25 So. 3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The postconviction court denied the instant motion as successive to an earlier motion for jail credit, which was denied, but the instant motion is not barred as success…
Authorities Cited
- Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Bronk v. State, 25 So. 3d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- White v. State, 940 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)