DWAYNE KING, 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.
Dwayne King appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, seeking jail credit for time spent in custody awaiting trial. The court reversed, holding that although King's bond was revoked only in one case, the sentencing judge's oral pronouncement awarded credit on all concurrent sentences, and the oral pronouncement controls over the written sentence.
King is entitled to the additional 269 days of jail credit in case 04-009120 because the sentencing judge's oral pronouncement awarding credit controls over the written sentence, and trial courts have discretion to award credit on concurrent sentences even when a bond was revoked in only one case.
[1] A discrepancy between a sentencing judge's oral pronouncement and the written sentence constitutes a valid basis for a claim of illegal sentence.
[2] When a written sentence and an oral pronouncement conflict, the oral pronouncement controls.
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“When the written sentence and oral pronouncement conflict, the oral pronouncement controls.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that oral pronouncements at sentencing take precedence over written sentences when they conflict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing was arrested on May 13, 2004, released on bond sixteen days later, and re-arrested on October 31, 2005, when his bond was revoked in a separate c…
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 Rescission Of Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
Dwayne King appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal *1248sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because we agree that King is entitled to additional jail credit, we reverse and remand.
King was first arrested pursuant to the charges in case number 04-009120 on May 13, 2004. He was released on bond sixteen days later on May 28, 2004. He was later taken back into custody, and his bond was revoked for a separate offense in case number 03-021911 on October 31, 2005. King remained in jail awaiting trial until July 27, 2006. On that date, after being convicted by a jury of two offenses in case number 04-009120 for which the court imposed consecutive five-year sentences, the trial court also sentenced King on five pending cases in which he pleaded guilty in his best interest. For all of those cases, which included case number 03-021911, Bang received sentences of one year and one day, all to run concurrently with each other and with the sentences imposed in case number 04-009120.
King filed the present rule 3.800(a) motion seeking 269 days of jail credit in case number 04-009120 for the time he spent in Hillsborough County jail from October 31, 2005, through his sentencing on July 27, 2006. The postconviction court summarily denied King’s motion on the ground that a defendant “is only entitled to credit against each sentence for the time spent in jail for the charge which led to that sentence.” Keene v. State, 500 So.2d 592, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Because King’s bond was revoked only in case number 03-021911, the postconviction court concluded that King was not entitled to additional credit.
However, in his rule 3.800(a) motion, King pointed to specific portions of the record indicating that the sentencing judge orally awarded him credit for the time he spent in jail from October 2005 until the sentencing hearing in all cases— including case number 04-009120. At sentencing, the judge and the defense attorney engaged in a somewhat extensive discussion of jail credit. The defense attorney recognized that the bond in case number 03-021911 was specifically revoked as to that case only; however, his client remained in jail from the time that bond was revoked on October 31, 2005, through the date of sentencing. After a discussion with a clerk, the judge concluded: “Fine. Just give him credit from October 31st.” Later, the judge repeated that he should “get full credit on all these from October 31st, '05.” However, the written sentence in case number 04-009120 reflects only seventeen days of jail credit: sixteen days for the time spent before being released on bond and one day for the day of sentencing. The discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and written sentence is a valid basis for an illegal sentence claim under rule 3.800(a). Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 605 (Fla.2007). When the written sentence and oral pronouncement conflict, the oral pronouncement controls. State v. Akins, 69 So.3d 261, 269 (Fla.2011).
The postconviction court is correct that King was not entitled to the additional credit in case number 04-009120 because his bond was only revoked as to case number 03-021911 in October 2005. Nevertheless, the sentencing court had the discretion to award the credit on all concurrent sentences, including case number 04-009120, and the transcript clearly indicates that intent. Failure to correct the sentence now to include the award of credit would be tantamount to rescinding previously awarded jail credit. “[T]his court has repeatedly held that a trial court may not rescind jail credit previously awarded even if the initial award was improper.” Lebron v. State, 870 So.2d 165, 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). To do so would constitute an *1249illegal enhancement of King’s sentence. See Linton v. State, 702 So.2d 236, 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Accordingly, we reverse the denial of King’s motion for jail credit and remand for the postconviction court to amend King’s sentence in case number 04-009120 to reflect his entitlement to the additional 269 days’ jail credit.
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Brogan, 100 So. 3d 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…on appeal because he was not entitled to the credit for time served under either statute or case law. Instead, he argues that the court’s granting of his request was a proper exercise of discretion. In support, the defendant relies on King v. State, 86 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). However, King is distinguishable from both Gethers and this case. In King, the defendant was charged in two separate cases in Hillsborough County. He was released on bond. He was later taken back into custody at the Hills-boroug…
-
State v. Roxana A. Patino, 192 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ial court may not rescind jail credit previously awarded even if the initial award was improper” and where the State has not appealed the issue. 32 So. 3d at 87 (quoting Lebron v. State, 870 So. 2d 165, 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)); accord King v. State, 86 So. 3d 1247, 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). In Turner, the defendant was sentenced at one hearing, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, in two cases. Although the parties and the trial court agreed that Turner had- no legal right to credit' for time spent on GPS…
-
Miles v. State, 343 So. 3d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…cle to challenge the discrepancy between the oral and written sentences. See Williams, 957 So. 2d at 603 ("[A] motion alleging a discrepancy between the oral and written sentences should be cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding."); King v. State, 86 So. 3d 1247, 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("The discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and written sentence is a valid basis for an illegal sentence claim under rule 3.800(a)." (citing Williams, 957 So. 2d at 605)); cf. Levandoski v. State, 245 So. 3d 643, 647 n…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 2011)
- Lebron v. State, 870 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Linton v. State, 702 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)