JOHN REASEE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2013-10-23
No. 4D11-4597
GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
123 So. 3d 693 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2013) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Reasee appeals a trial court's order correcting his sentence on a violation of probation (VOP-II), arguing he should receive credit for 478 days of pre-sentence jail time rather than 451 days. The court agrees that twenty-seven days spent in jail between the VOP-I hearing and the VOP-II warrant execution must be credited as pre-sentence jail time under Florida statute.


Holding

The court holds that the twenty-seven days must be credited as pre-sentence jail time for the VOP-II sentence because they were days served in jail prior to sentencing on VOP-II. Under Florida statute 921.161, courts must allow defendants credit for all time spent in county jail before sentence, including time served for violations of probation.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant is entitled to credit for all time spent in county jail before sentencing, including time served for prior violations of the same probation.

[2] Time spent in jail awaiting sentencing on a new violation of probation counts as pre-sentence jail time, even if it coincides with time served awaiting transfer to prison…

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

Key Quotes

“[T]he court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time she or he spent in the county jail before sentence.”

Establishes the mandatory statutory requirement for jail time credit under Florida law.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Reasee was charged with violating his probation. At a VOP-I hearing on February 17, 2011, he pled guilty but then threatened the victim, prompting the…

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.


Opinion of the Court
FORST, J.

FORST, J.

Reasee, the defendant below (“the defendant”), appeals the trial court’s order correcting his sentence. The defendant argues that the court should have awarded credit for 478 days of pre-sentence jail time, rather than the 451 days of pre-sentence jail time that were credited to his sentence. We agree and reverse.

The defendant was initially charged with violating his probation (“VOP-I”), and a violation of probation hearing was held on February 17, 2011. The defendant appeared in court and pled guilty to the violation of probation. Before the defendant was taken from the courtroom, he was observed threatening the victim, who was in attendance. The presiding judge deemed this to be a new violation of probation (“VOP-II”). The presiding judge then sentenced the defendant on VOP-I, and contemporaneously ordered that the defendant be held until further order from the court as to VOP II. At the judge’s direction, a violation of probation warrant for VOP-II was executed on March 18, 2011. The defendant was sentenced on VOP-II on November 21, 2011.

The defendant filed a motion to correct his sentence for VOP-II, arguing that the trial court should give him credit for 478 days of pre-sentence jail time. The State agreed to a 451-day credit, but it argued that the twenty-seven days the defendant spent in jail between February 17, 2011 and March 17, 2011 were not pre-sentence jail time. The trial court agreed with the State and awarded credit for only 451 days of pre-sentence jail time. It is the time between February 17, 2011 and March 17, 2011 which is the subject of the instant appeal. We hold that the trial court should have considered this time to be pre-sentence jail time because it was time served in jail prior to being sentenced on VOP-II.

*695“[T]he court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time she or he spent in the county jail before sentence.” Waithe v. State, 941 So.2d 534, 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting § 921.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2011)). This credit for time served is mandatory under section 921.161 and includes any portion of jail time served for the current violation of probation and prior violations of the same probation. Id,.; Davis v. State, 88 So.3d 1055, 1056-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

The twenty-seven days that the defendant spent in jail between February 17 and March 17, even if these days coincided with the period that the defendant was in county jail awaiting transfer to prison on the VOP-I sentence, should be counted as pre-sentence jail time for the VOP-II sentence. The record reflects that the defendant was held on VOP-II beginning on February 17, 2011, and remained in jail until November 21, 2011, when he was finally sentenced on VOP-II.

The cases cited by the State support the proposition that the defendant must seek jail time credit from the Department of Corrections for any time served in jail after sentencing, but before transfer to state prison. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 932 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Such is not the case here. In this case, the judge presiding over the original VOP-I hearing ordered the defendant held until further notice as to VOP-II at the time this second violation occurred on February 17, 2011. The twenty-seven days between February 17 and March 17 were served before the defendant was sentenced on VOP-II; therefore, the defendant is entitled to have his sentence on VOP-II corrected to reflect credit for those twenty-seven days.

Accordingly, we remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed.

GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Brown v. State, 160 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Reasee v. State, 123 So. 3d 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); see also Willis v. State, 18 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that credit for time spent in jail after sentencing must be addressed to the Department of Corrections); Smith v. State, 932 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 200…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw