FRANK A.L. MOSLEY, 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.
The court held that a defendant is not entitled to jail time credit on both counts of consecutive sentences, but is entitled to assistance of counsel at resentencing.
[1] Jail time credit need not be applied to all consecutive sentences.
[2] A defendant is not entitled to have jail time credit pyramided by being given credit on each sentence for the full time spent in jail awaiting disposition of multiple cha…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMosley was convicted of two crimes and sentenced to consecutive prison releasee reoffender (PRR) enhanced sentences. After remand for resentencing due…
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 Aggravated Stalking cases and more on FLexlaw
A jury convicted Frank A.L. Mosley of lewd and lascivious molestation (Count I) and aggravated stalking (Count II). Mosley was sentenced to consecutive sentences with prison releasee reoffender (PRR) enhancement on both counts. Mosley appealed his judgment and sentence. His convictions were affirmed by this court without comment, but the case was remanded to the trial court for resentencing. In reversing the original sentence, we explained that PRR sentences may not be ordered to run consecutively when the crimes were committed during a single criminal episode. Mosley v. State, 112 So.3d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), rev. granted, No. SC13-704, 2014 WL 305705 (Fla. Jan. 14, 2014). On remand, the trial court sentenced Mosley to consecutive sentences, but removed the PRR designation from Count II.
Mosley appeals his new sentences, arguing that he should be awarded jail time credit against both counts of his consecutive sentences, and that he should have been offered assistance of counsel upon resentencing. We do not agree with Mosley that presentence jail credit should apply to both counts of his consecutive sentences. Jail time credit need not be applied to all consecutive sentences. Gillespie v. State, 910 So.2d 322, 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). A defendant “is not entitled to have his jail time credit pyramided by being given credit on each sentence for the full time he spends in jail awaiting disposition of multiple charges or cases.” Miller v. State, 297 So.2d 36, 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Because Mosley is not entitled to jail time credit on both counts of his consecutive sentences, the trial court did not err in awarding Mosley presentence jail time only for Count I.
However, we agree with Mosley that the trial court erred in failing to offer him assistance of counsel. A defendant has the right to be represented by counsel during a resentencing hearing where the court is exercising discretion. Bines v. State, 837 So.2d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.
THOMAS, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Winston v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Miller v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Bines v. State, 837 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Gillespie v. State, 910 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Oliver v. Oliver, 112 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Mosley v. State, 112 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)