CHRISTOPHER BEICH, 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.
Christopher Beich appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming he was entitled to additional prison credit for time served during the incarcerative portion of his split sentence. The court reversed and remanded because Beich validly raised that he deserved credit for time served in prison before his probationary violations.
Beich is entitled to credit for time served on the incarcerative portion of his split sentence upon violating the probationary portion. The trial court's failure to check the box indicating prison credit was erroneous, and the motion to correct an illegal sentence was cognizable under Rule 3.800(a).
[1] A claim for prior prison time served on cases for which a defendant violated probation is cognizable in a motion for additional jail credit.
[2] Upon violating the probationary portion of a split sentence, a defendant is entitled to credit for time served on the incarcerative portion.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Upon violating the probationary portion of a split sentence, the defendant is entitled to credit for time served on the incarcerative portion.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that Beich invoked in his motion, establishing his entitlement to additional prison credit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeich pleaded nolo contendere to leaving the scene of an accident with injuries and was sentenced on October 23, 2007, to two years in prison followed…
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 Prison Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
Christopher Beich appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which he alleged that he was entitled to additional prison credit. We reverse the postconviction court’s order of denial and remand for further proceedings.
On October 23, 2007, Beich pleaded nolo contendere to one count of leaving the scene of an accident with injuries and was sentenced to a term of two years in prison followed by two years of community control and one year of probation. On November 15, 2009, Beich was released from prison and placed on community control. Shortly thereafter, Beich admitted violating community control, and he received a suspended sentence of five years’ imprisonment. On May 6, 2010, Beich once again admitted violating community control and was subsequently sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with 109 days of credit for time served in jail.
In his motion, Beich alleged that he is entitled to an additional two years of credit for time served in prison during the incar-cerative portion of his original split sentence. In support, Beich claimed that he was initially sentenced on April 29, 2008, and released on November 15, 2009. However, Beich alleged that the court only gave him credit for the time served in jail while awaiting sentencing on his two violations of community control. Beich ultimately claimed that the trial court’s failure to include the incarcerative portion of his initial sentence in its credit calculation resulted in his current sentence exceeding the five-year statutory maximum for a third-degree felony.
Beich’s claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion, and “[ujpon violating the probationary portion of a split sentence, the defendant is entitled to credit for time served on the incarcerative portion.” Layman v. State, 787 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Singletary v. Slay, 688 So.2d 319, 320 (Fla.1997). It appears that the trial court did not award prison credit because the corresponding box on the written judgment and sentence was left blank. “It is the trial court’s responsibility to place a check in the appropriate box concerning prison credit.” Andrews v. State, 822 So.2d 540, 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Downing v. State, 779 So.2d 562, 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Because Beich has raised a valid claim for credit for time served during the incar-cerative portion of his probationary split sentence, we reverse the denial of Beich’s motion and remand for the postconviction court to check the box indicating Beich’s entitlement to prison credit.
Reversed and remanded.
VILLANTI, WALLACE, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chipman v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…ed from the date of the original sentence."). Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to correct the sentencing order to reflect Chipman's entitlement to credit for time served since the date of the original sentencing. See Beich v. State, 93 So. 3d 407, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (reversing and remanding for the court to check the box indicating the defendant's entitlement to prison credit); Andrews v. State, 822 So. 2d 540, 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (same). Chipman's claim regarding the trial court's Fe…
Authorities Cited
- Singletary v. Genorval Slay, 688 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1997)
- Shamus D. Layman v. State, 787 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Downing v. State, 779 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Cummings v. State, 779 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Howard v. Lacey A. Collier, 822 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Andrews v. State, 822 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)