ROBERT J. NORDER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2012-05-04
No. 1D11-6754
DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
86 So. 3d 1255 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2012)

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.

Synopsis

Robert Norder appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for additional jail credit. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court's record did not clearly establish whether Norder was arrested on violation of probation warrants or held solely on a detainer, which would determine his entitlement to jail credit.


Holding

Norder would be entitled to additional jail credit if he was arrested based on violation of probation warrants or if he was held in Collier and Lee Counties solely on a Hamilton County detainer. The entitlement to credit depends on these factual circumstances not clearly shown in the trial court record.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant is entitled to jail credit for time spent in a county jail when arrested pursuant to a warrant from another county.

[2] A defendant is not entitled to jail credit for time spent incarcerated based on a detainer unless the detainer is the sole basis for the incarceration.

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

Key Quotes

“If Appellant was arrested in Collier and Lee Counties based upon the violation of probation warrants, he would be entitled to additional jail credit.”

Establishes the rule that arrest on violation of probation warrants entitles defendant to jail credit

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Norder was arrested in Collier and Lee Counties. The trial court record did not clarify whether he was arrested based on violation of probation warran…

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.

Topics

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Detainer cases and more on FLexlaw


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Robert J. Norder, seeks review of the trial court’s Order Denying Motion for Additional Jail Credit. As the State conceded in its response to our show cause order issued pursuant to Toler v. State, 493 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the trial court’s record attachments do not show whether: (1) Appellant was arrested in Collier and Lee Counties based on the violation of probation warrants or if Hamilton County issued a detainer for Appellant; and (2) if a detainer was issued, whether Appellant was held solely on the Hamilton County detainer in Collier and Lee Counties or if he was arrested and held on other charges as well. If Appellant was arrested in Collier and Lee Counties based upon the violation of probation warrants, he would be entitled to additional jail credit. See Trout v. State, 927 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (noting that a defendant is entitled to jail credit for time spent in a county jail when he has been arrested pursuant to a warrant from another county). Appellant would also be entitled to additional jail credit if he was held in Collier and Lee Counties solely on a Hamilton County detainer. See Gethers v. State, 838 So.2d 504, 507 (Fla.2003) (explaining that a prisoner is not in custody pursuant to a detainer unless the prisoner is subject to release and is being held because a detainer has been lodged against him or her); Ransone v. State, 20 So.3d 445, 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (explaining that Gethers held that a defendant is not entitled to jail credit when authorities merely place a hold or detainer against him or her unless the hold or detainer is the sole basis for the defendant’s incarceration).

Accordingly, we REVERSE the trial court’s order and REMAND with instructions to either attach portions of the rec*1256ord that conclusively refute Appellant’s claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw