JOSEPH SAFRANY, 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.
Joseph Safrany appeals amended sentences imposed at resentencing for DUI manslaughter and DUI causing serious bodily injury. The trial court committed sentencing errors by failing to properly credit time served when shifting from concurrent to consecutive sentences and by imposing a fifteen-year sentence on one count when only five years was orally pronounced. The court reverses and remands for correction of these errors.
The amended sentences contain errors requiring reversal and remand. The sentence on count seven must be corrected to reflect the five-year oral pronouncement rather than the fifteen years stated in the written sentence. On remand, Safrany is entitled to credit for time served on each consecutive sentence for counts one, two, and three under the Rabedeau standard.
[1] A resentencing hearing based on ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing may result in a change from concurrent to consecutive sentences.
[2] When a sentence is changed from concurrent to consecutive, credit for time served must be adequately addressed in light of the shift.
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“the three sentences did not adequately address credit for time served in the context of a shift from concurrent to consecutive sentences”
Establishes the primary error regarding failure to properly credit time served when changing from concurrent to consecutive sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSafrany was convicted of three counts of DUI manslaughter and one count of DUI causing serious bodily injury for offenses occurring in April 2000. He …
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 Dui With Serious Bodily Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
Joseph Safrany appeals the amended sentences entered on his resentencing for three counts of DUI manslaughter and one count of DUI causing serious bodily injury for offenses that occurred in April 2000. These amended sentences were entered as a result of a resentencing hearing afforded to Mr. Safrany based on a postconviction determination of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.1 We reverse and remand.
Mr. Safrany had already begun serving concurrent life prison sentences on the three counts of DUI manslaughter when he was granted this resentencing hearing. At resentencing, the trial court orally pronounced three fifteen-year terms of imprisonment on Mr. Safrany’s three convictions for DUI manslaughter, which were to be served consecutively rather than concurrently. The written amended sentences properly reflected this oral pronouncement. Unfortunately, the three sentences did not adequately address credit for time served in the context of a shift from concurrent to consecutive sentences.
The trial court also orally pronounced a sentence of five years’ imprisonment on Mr. Safrany’s conviction for DUI causing serious bodily injury, count seven, but the written amended sentence incorrectly re-*193fleeted a term of fifteen years’ imprisonment. During the pendency of this appeal, Mr. Safrany’s appellate counsel filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), alerting the trial court to this sentencing error. In the motion, Mr. Saf-rany’s counsel also alerted the trial court to the error in credit for time served on the three convictions for DUI manslaughter, counts one, two, and three, in light of the holding in State v. Rabedeau, 2 So.3d 191 (Fla.2009). The trial court, however, failed to address the motion to correct sentencing error; and it is thus deemed denied. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B).
As properly conceded by the State, the amended sentence on count seven must be corrected. We note that Mr. Safrany has fully served his sentence on the conviction for count seven. On remand, care should be taken to assure that the correction of the sentence does not result in a new sentence that might appear to require additional time in prison on count seven. Additionally, pursuant to Rabedeau, 2 So.3d at 193, Mr. Safrany is entitled to credit on each of his consecutive sentences on counts one, two, and three, for the time he served on his original concurrent sentences on these three counts.2
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rabedeau, 2 So. 3d 191 (Fla. 2009)
- Gary v. State, 895 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)