GEORGE COUSNARD, 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 affirmed the revocation of probation but reversed the denial of the motion to correct sentencing error regarding jail credit.
Appellant's probation was revoked due to a new law violation. He also filed a motion for additional jail credit, which the trial court denied.…
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 New Law Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm Appellant’s revocation of probation and sentence based on his new law violation, possession of marijuana. But based on the state’s proper eoncession of error in response to our Hamson order,1 we reverse the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to correct sentencing error filed during the pendency of this appeal under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).2
In Appellant’s Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, he asserted he was entitled to nine (9) additional days’ jail credit. Based on our review of the record, it appears the trial court awarded Appellant at least three (3) extra days credit for time served in jail between his arrest on May 28, 2014, for his new law violation, and his violation of probation hearing on October 21, 2014 (exclusive of the days he was out on bond). However, it appears this award of jail credit did not include all twelve (12) days’ credit awarded Appellant on November 4, 2013, when he was originally placed on probation. See Gammon v. State, 738 So.2d 980, 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Young v. State, 840 So.2d 468, 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Therefore, we reverse the denial of Appellant’s Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, and remand to the trial court to recalculate Appellant’s credit for time served and re-sentence him as appropriate.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED with directions.
WETHERELL, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason v. State, 220 So. 3d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…r that jail credit matters can be litigated in either a motion filed under rule 3.800(b) while a defendant’s direct appeal is pending, or in a motion filed under rule 3.801 after a defendant’s sentence has become final”); see also Cousnard v. State, 188 So. 3d 936, 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing the trial court’s denial of a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error that sought an additional award of jail credit); Lowe v. State, 152 So. 3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quashing the trial court…
-
Hamiter v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…ntencing error" without 3The First District has since adopted a procedure involving the issuance of a "Harrison Order," by which it directs the State to respond to a claim of sentencing error raised in an Anders brief. See, e.g., Cousnard v. State, 188 So. 3d 936, 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). As of this writing, this court has no such procedure in place, but nothing prevents an individual panel from ordering a response from the State. - 6 - subjecting the asserted error to adversarial testing.4 But our questi…
Authorities Cited
- Terone Harrison v. State, 146 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- R.L. Gammon v. State, 738 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Young v. State, 840 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)