BERNARD DANIEL DUFFY, 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.
Bernard Daniel Duffy appeals a post-conviction court's denial of his motion for additional jail credit. The court reversed, holding that Duffy was entitled to jail credit in all three concurrent probation cases from the date of his arrest for violating probation, even though he was not formally arrested on one case until later.
Yes. A defendant in custody on concurrent probationary terms is entitled to jail credit in all cases from the initial date of arrest, regardless of whether formal arrest warrants were issued or executed on the same date for each case, provided the record demonstrates the defendant was in custody for violation of probation in all cases.
[1] A defendant is entitled to jail credit for the period of time they are in custody while on probation, even if an arrest warrant for a violation in a concurrent case was n…
[2] When a defendant violates probation in multiple concurrent cases, and is taken into custody for one violation, they are entitled to jail credit for the period of custody…
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“although Milligan was not arrested for violating probation in one of the two cases in which he was serving concurrent terms of probation, because the record demonstrated that he was in custody in both cases, he was entitled to jail credit in both cases”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that jail credit entitlement depends on being in custody, not on formal arrest in each individual case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 2009, Duffy received concurrent sentences across three cases: two years' community control followed by fifteen years' probation in one cas…
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 Motion For Additional Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
Bernard Daniel Duffy appeals the post-conviction court’s order summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) in which he sought additional jail credit on the sentence he received in circuit court case number 09-2896. We reverse.
In November 2009, the trial court placed Duffy on two years’ community control in case number 07-3184 followed by fifteen years’ probation in case number 08-6562 to *475be served concurrently with the ten-year probationary term he received in case number 09-2896. On April 11, 2011, Duffy was arrested for violating probation in case numbers 07-3184 and 08-6562.1 However, an arrest warrant for case number 09-2896 was not issued until December 2011, and Duffy was apparently not formally arrested until January 4, 2012. As a result, when the trial court revoked Duffy’s probation and sentenced him in the three cases to concurrent terms of two years’ imprisonment on January 5, 2012, it gave him jail credit in case numbers 07-3184 and 08-6562 from April 11, 2011, but it gave him only three days’ jail credit in case number 09-2896. In his rule 3.800(a) motion, Duffy argued that because he violated probation in all three cases, he also was entitled to jail credit in case number 09-2896 from April 11, 2011, to January 5, 2012.
We ordered the State to respond to Duffy’s argument in light of Milligan v. State, 88 So.3d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), in which this court concluded that although Milligan was not arrested for violating probation in one of the two cases in which he was serving concurrent terms of probation, because the record demonstrated that he was in custody in both cases, he was entitled to jail credit in both cases. The State concedes that under Milligan, Duffy is entitled to jail credit in case number 09-2896 from April 11, 2011, through January 5, 2012.2 Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because it appears that Duffy’s release would be imminent if he were given the ádditional jail credit, the postconviction court should expedite the proceedings on remand and enter an order within fifteen days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this proceeding.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shadrick A. Martin, Jr. v. State, 243 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Vendul Oliver Stafford v. State, 455 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1984)
- Tinker v. State, 870 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Gonzalez v. State, 17 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Gallon v. State, 928 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Cochran v. State, 88 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Milligan v. State, 88 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)