CHRISTOPHER NELSON, 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.
Christopher Nelson appealed a trial court's denial of additional jail credit for time spent in an ART (drug rehabilitation) program as a condition of probation. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence—which explicitly awarded credit for time in ART—controls over the written sentence, even if such credit may be prohibited by statute.
The oral pronouncement of sentence controls over written documents. Because the trial court orally pronounced that Nelson would receive credit for time spent in ART, the trial court must either attach documents refuting that oral pronouncement or grant the relief.
[1] A trial court cannot delegate its sentencing authority to the clerk of court.
[2] A trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively show a defendant is not entitled to relief when denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
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“You definitely get it for the ART... Yeah, you will get credit for all that.”
Trial court's explicit oral pronouncement awarding credit for ART program time during sentencing colloquy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNelson was sentenced after pleading guilty to underlying offenses. At sentencing, the trial court engaged in a colloquy with Nelson regarding jail cre…
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
The appellant filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 seeking additional jail credit. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.
*174The appellant alleged an entitlement to 52 additional days of credit for time spent in the “ART Program” as a condition of his probation. Specifically, he asserts that the trial court orally pronounced that he was to be given credit for all time he spent in the ART program. The trial court ruled that the appellant was actually awarded more credit that he was entitled to receive, and that he was not entitled to credit for the 52 days he spent in the ART program because that was a condition of his probation. See § 948.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2010) (“No part of the time that the defendant is on probation or in community control shall be considered as any part of the time that he or she shall be sentenced to serve.”); State v. Cregan, 908 So.2d 387, 390-91 (Fla.2005) (holding that “a defendant who violates the conditions of his community control cannot receive credit against a subsequent prison sentence for the time he spent in a drug rehabilitation facility”).
The appellant attached a transcript of his sentencing hearing, which includes the following exchanges:
Court: Do you have any questions to ask either myself or your attorney prior to me accepting your plea?
Appellant: I just — do I get credit for time served that I’ve been on community control and the ART?
Court: You definitely get it for the ART.
Appellant: I had been there for almost three months. And that’s the month I waited twice.
Court: Yeah, you will get credit for all that.
Appellant: I can get credit for the time served and the month that I was on community control?
Court: I don’t believe there’s anything that allows me to give you that. And you do admit that you were away from home?
Appellant: Yes, ma’am.
Court: Okay. Then at this time I will find that the plea is freely, voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made and that there is a factual basis as stipulated to. [Defense Counsel], anything further?
Counsel: No, ma’am. You are just indicating you will give him credit for the time he was in ART and the time waiting to go to ART?
Court: That is correct. I will give him time for that because he was, in fact, for all intents and purposes, confined.
Appellant: Yes, ma’am.
Court: Then I will at this time revoke his community control and his probation, adjudicate him guilty on the underlying offenses, sentence him to 45.6 months with credit for the time he served on the case as well as the time he was in ART.
(emphasis added).
Regardless of whether the appellant is entitled to the credit under pursuant to the Florida Statutes, he is alleging that the trial court orally awarded credit for time spent in ART when it stated that he was to receive all jail credit, including credit for the “time he was in ART.” The oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written sentence. See Ashley v. State, 850 So.2d 1265 (Fla.2003) (holding that oral pronouncement of sentence con*175trols over written documents); Johnson v. State, 627 So.2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (written sentence must comport with oral pronouncement of jail credit). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to attach documents refuting the appellant’s claim that the trial court orally pronounced that he was to be given credit for time spent in ART, or to grant relief.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parker v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…ount. The State concedes error. ---PAGE 2--- 2 It is “a longstanding principle of law—that a court’s oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written document.” Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 2003); see also Nelson v. State, 148 So. 3d 173, 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Ashley and reaffirming that “[t]he oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written sentence”). “To hold otherwise does serious harm to the double jeopardy principles which have guided our courts for centurie…
-
Tillman v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…fendant "was not entitled to the additional credit"—much like Tillman—this court held that "the sentencing court had the discretion to award the credit . . . and the transcript clearly 7 indicate[d] that intent." Id.2; see also Nelson v. State, 148 So. 3d 173, 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding that the oral pronouncement of the award of jail credit controls over the written sentence regardless of whether the defendant is entitled to the jail credit). Accordingly, we reverse the written sentences in lo…
-
Kacy Danielle Crenshaw v. State, 247 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- State v. Cregan, 908 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2005)
- Johnson v. State, 627 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)