WILBERT JOHNSON, JR., 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.
Appellant's rule 3.800(a) motion for additional jail credit was properly denied because the trial court imposed the resentence nunc pro tunc to the original sentencing date, making post-sentencing credit calculations the responsibility of the Department of Corrections rather than the trial court.
When a trial court imposes a new sentence nunc pro tunc to the date of the original sentence at resentencing, credit for time served between the original sentence and resentencing is post-sentencing credit calculated by the Department of Corrections, not the trial court.
[1] When a sentence is imposed nunc pro tunc to the original sentencing date at resentencing, credit for time served between the original sentence and resentencing constitute…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilbert Johnson, Jr. sought additional credit for two periods of time served in county jail—one while awaiting a hearing on a postconviction motion an…
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Wilbert Johnson, Jr., appeals the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion which sought additional credit for two periods of time served in the county jail. He has not shown that he is entitled to additional credit from the trial court. The Department of Corrections (DOC) is responsible for calculating the credit for time served while he was in the county jail awaiting a *157hearing on a postconviction motion. Beckwith v. State, 799 So.2d 310, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Generally, the trial court would be responsible for calculating the credit for time served in the county jail after the original sentence was vacated and until appellant was resentenced. Id. However, it appears that, at resentencing, the trial court imposed the new sentence nunc pro tunc to the date of the original sentence. Thus, the time for which appellant seeks additional credit would be post-sentencing credit calculated by DOC. See Arnett v. State, 626 So.2d 308, 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (concluding there was no error where the sentence did not include credit between the original sentence and resen-tencing because the nunc pro tunc sentence imposed at resentencing made it clear the sentence was being served from the original sentencing date); see also Martin v. State, 31 So.3d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (Cope, J., concurring).
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of appellant’s 3.800(a) motion without prejudice for him to pursue his administrative remedies with DOC if DOC did not properly calculate his time served.
Affirmed.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Arnett v. State, 626 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Beckwith v. State, 799 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Martin v. State, 31 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)