PATRICK O'HEARN, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence but without prejudice, allowing the defendant to file a motion to enforce a plea agreement.
[1] A defendant is entitled to receive jail time credit only for the amount of time actually served before sentencing for the specific charge for which they are being sentenc…
[2] A defendant seeking to enforce a plea agreement where sentences were intended to run coterminously but the written sentence does not reflect this may file a motion to enf…
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 intelligenceThe defendant sought jail time credit, alleging an intended concurrent sentence was not properly credited across two cases. The trial court denied the…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Patrick O’Hearn (Defendant) appeals an order of the Broward County circuit court, summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm without prejudice.
Defendant asked the court to correct his jail time credit, alleging he received 329 days of credit against his sentences in his 2006 case, but only 49 days of credit against his sentences in his 2008 case, requiring him to serve 280 days more than he believed the trial court intended. All his sentences were imposed on the same date and were to run concurrently, but it was also his position, which he alleged was consistent with his plea agreement, that the sentencing court intended for his sentences to begin and end on the same date.
The postconviction court denied the motion with an order that stated that the amount of time served on each case would not be the same because Defendant was arrested on each case on separate dates; the time served on each case was accurate.
Defendant was not entitled by law to have the 329 days of credit he received in the 2006 case applied as well to the 2008 case; a defendant is entitled to receive credit only for the amount of time he or she actually served before sentencing for the charge for which he or she is being sentenced. E.g., Harris v. State, 483 So.2d 111, 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
However, if Defendant’s plea agreement provided that the sentences for both cases were imposed to run coterminously, but the sentence did not so provide, then his remedy would be to file a sworn rule 3.850 motion to enforce the plea agreement, or to withdraw the plea as involuntary. See Almodovar v. State, 56 So.3d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
Because the instant appeal was pending when the two-year time period for filing a timely rule 3.850 motion expired, Defendant, if he chooses to do so, shall have thirty days from the issuance of the mandate in this ease within which to file such a rule 3.850 motion, which shall be considered timely filed.
Affirmed without prejudice.
TAYLOR, HAZOURI and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ermino Escobedo-Muniz v. State, 74 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
Authorities Cited
- Harris v. State, 483 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Almodovar v. State, 56 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)