EDWIN C. WIGLEY, 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.
Edwin Wigley appealed the denial of his rule 3.800(a) postconviction motion seeking relief on four claims. The court affirmed the denial of two claims without comment, affirmed the trial court's grant of relief on a third claim, and reversed on the fourth claim regarding failure to award prison credit on one count.
The trial court erred by failing to award prison credit on count II in case 96-3829 for time previously served, and that decision is reversed and remanded. The trial court correctly required exhaustion of administrative remedies regarding the Department of Corrections' misapplication of prison credit on count I.
[1] A defendant is entitled to prison credit for time previously served on an offense, even if credit was only awarded on another count in the same case.
[2] A defendant must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief regarding the misapplication of prison credit by the Department of Corrections.
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 intelligence“the appellant was entitled to prison credit on count II as well, as he previously served 6 years in prison for that offense”
Establishes the core holding that Wigley should have received prison credit on count II despite the trial court's omission
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWigley pled nolo contendere in May 1997 to robbery and attempted carjacking, grand theft auto, and criminal mischief. He was sentenced as a habitual f…
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 Habitual Felony Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Edwin C. Wigley appeals the summary denial of his motion seeking postconviction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm, without comment, the postconviction court’s denial of two of his claims. Further, the trial court granted relief on a third claim, 'which is not at issue in this appeal. However, as to his fourth claim, we reverse.
On May 12,1997, the appellant pled nolo contendere to robbery (count I) in case 96-3828 and to attempted carjacking (count I), grand theft auto (count II), and criminal mischief (count III) in case 96-3829. He was sentenced as a habitual felony offender (HFO) to concurrent terms of 6 years in prison followed by 4 years on probation for each offense, except that he was sentenced to time served as to the criminal mischief charge. On January 25, 2006, the appellant admitted to violating his probation and was sentenced as an HFO to 30 years in prison on count I in each case and 10 years in prison on count II in case 96-3829.
*474In the instant postconviction motion, the appellant argued in his fourth claim that the trial court failed to award him credit for time previously served in prison on count II in case 96-3829. A review of the judgment reveals that the trial court only awarded prison credit on count I in each case. However, the appellant was entitled to prison credit on count II as well, as he previously served 6 years in prison for that offense. See Nix v. State, 941 So.2d 568, 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citing Swain v. State, 845 So.2d 314, 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and Corpus v. State, 744 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)). Insofar as he argues that the Department of Corrections is misapplying the prison credit awarded on count I in each case, the trial court correctly determined that he is required to exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking relief from the court. See Canty v. State, 884 So.2d 123, 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order as to the fourth claim and remand for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. .
ROWE, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richard v. Pruitte, 845 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Corpus v. State, 744 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Canty v. State, 884 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- NIX v. State, 941 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)