NELSON SANTIAGO, 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.
Santiago appealed a summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion claiming he was entitled to credit for time served in jail on each of his consecutive sentences. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that under State v. Rabedeau, Santiago must receive credit for time originally served on concurrent sentences when resentenced to consecutive sentences.
Santiago is entitled to credit for time originally served in county jail on each of his consecutive sentences under State v. Rabedeau. Time served after arrest for the probation violation may be credited only to the first consecutive sentence. The case is remanded because the record does not clearly indicate how the 414 days of jail credit was allocated between pre-probation and post-probation jail time.
[1] A sentencing error that results in a defendant being incarcerated for a period longer than legally permitted may be raised through any available legal avenue.
[2] Sentencing documents must be interpreted to determine whether sentences are concurrent or consecutive.
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“if multiple convictions result in concurrent sentences, credit must be awarded for time served on each sentence in any resentencing for the multiple convictions”
Establishes the core legal principle from State v. Rabedeau that Santiago relied upon for his entitlement to jail credit on each consecutive sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSantiago was sentenced on September 12, 2005 to concurrent terms of 364 days in county jail and two years' probation for burglary of a conveyance and …
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 Credit For Jail Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
Nelson Santiago appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for the postconviction court to reconsider his claim.
On September 12, 2005, Santiago was sentenced to concurrent terms of 364 days in the county jail followed by two years’ probation on one count of burglary of a conveyance and one count of grand theft. Santiago actually served an unspecified number of days in jail. Sometime after his release, he pleaded guilty to violating his probation. As a result, the court sentenced Santiago to consecutive five-year prison sentences on September 1, 2006.
Santiago contends that he is entitled to credit for the time he spent incarcerated prior to release on probation on each of his now consecutive sentences. Santiago appropriately relies upon State v. Rabedeau, 2 So.3d 191, 193 (Fla.2009), which holds that “if multiple convictions result in concurrent sentences, credit must be awarded for time served on each sentence in any resentencing for the multiple convictions.” The written sentence does not clearly reflect how the circuit court calculated Santiago’s jail credit. Although the court checked a provision awarding Santiago 414 days of jail credit, it is unclear whether the court intended to award credit on each of the consecutive sentences and, if so, how much credit was to be applied to each sentence. Under Rabedeau, Santiago is entitled to credit for time originally served in the county jail for each offense upon resentencing. Id.
Furthermore, the sentencing documents do not clearly indicate how many of the 414 days were credited for time Santiago spent in jail after his arrest on the violation of probation (VOP). We can only speculate that some portion of the 414 days awarded to Santiago must have been days served in the county jail after he was arrested for the VOP, as his original sentence was limited to concurrent terms of 364 days in jail. As to that post-VOP jail time, however, Santiago is entitled to credit only on the first of his current consecutive sentences. See Steadman v. State, 23 So.3d 811, 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
Because the record is not clear as to what portion of the 414 days of jail credit was awarded for time served on the original sentence — which must be applied to each consecutive sentence — we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to reconsider Santiago’s motion in light of Rabedeau.
Reversed and remanded.
VILLANTI and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Florio-Bundy v. State, 155 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Santiago v. State, 91 So. 3d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). DAMOORGIAN, C.J., WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rabedeau, 2 So. 3d 191 (Fla. 2009)
- Steadman v. State, 23 So. 3d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)