ANTONIO FERNANDEZ, 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.
Fernandez appeals a postconviction court's denial of additional jail credit in a failure-to-appear case. The court holds that jail credit for a failure-to-appear charge should be calculated from the arrest date rather than the date the information was filed, and reverses because the record supports Fernandez's claim that he was arrested on December 13, 2013, entitling him to 288 days of credit rather than the 248 days awarded.
The court holds that the arrest date, rather than the date the information is filed, is the operative date for determining jail credit in failure-to-appear cases. Because the postconviction record supported Fernandez's assertion that he was arrested on December 13, 2013, he is entitled to jail credit for 288 days rather than 248 days.
[1] Jail credit for a failure to appear charge should be calculated from the date of arrest, not the date the information was filed.
[2] An arrest on a bench warrant or capias in a pending case constitutes the initial arrest for a consequential failure to appear charge.
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“failure to appear is an unusual offense because the single act is both an act of contempt in the pending case and a separate criminal offense”
Establishes the legal nature of failure-to-appear charges and why arrest date controls rather than filing date
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFernandez was arrested on December 13, 2013, for failure to appear in case number 2013-CF-2199, resulting in a new charge in case number 2014-CF-241. …
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 Jail Credit Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
Antonio Fernandez appeals the postcon-viction court’s order summarily denying his motion for jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. Because Fernandez is entitled to jail credit in case number '2014-CF-241 for the time he spent in jail from the date 'of his arrest for failure to appear in case number 2013-CF-2199, we reverse.
Fernandez claimed entitlement to additional jail credit in case, number 2014-CF-241, in which he was charged with . failure to appear for proceedings in case number 2013-CF-2199. He asserted that he was' awarded jail credit only from the date that the information was filed in the. 2014'case, January 22, 2014, until the date of sentencing, September .26, 2014, in spite of the fact that he was actually arrested for failure to appear on December 13, 2013. The posteonviction court denied Fernandez’s claim for additional credit, interpreting it as a claim for additional jail credit in both the 2013 and 2014 cases. To the extent that the postconviction court’s. order denied Fernandez’s claim for additional jail credit in the 2013 case, we affirm without further discussion. However, we must reverse the postconviction .court’s order to the extent that it summarily denied. Fernandez’s claim for additional jail credit in case number. 2014-CF-241.
The attachments to the postcon-viction court’s order indicate that the 248 days of credit awarded at Fernandez’s sentencing in case number 2014-GF-241 include jail time served from January 22, 2014, which appears to be the date on which the information was filed on. the failure to appear charge,1 until his sentencing on -September 26, 2014. But as this court has explained, failure to appear is an unusual offense because the single act is both an act of contempt in the pending case and a separate criminal offense. See Bronk v. State, 25 So.3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).. An arrest on a bench warrant or. capias in a pending case is also the initial arrest for a consequential .failure to appear charge. Id.; see also Lee v. State, 890 So.2d 1292, 1292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). As a .result, the arrest date, rather than the date on which the charge was officially filed, is the operative date for determining jail credit. The custody and bond status reports attached to the postconviction court’s order indicate that Fernandez was arrested on December 13, 2013, following his failure to appear in case number 2013-CF-2199. Thus, the limited postconviction record supports Fernandez’s assertion that he was actually arrested for the new charge of failure to appear in case number 2Q14-CF-241 on December 13, 2013, forty days before the date the information was allegedly filed.
Because the attachments to the postcon-viction court’s order do not conclusively refute Fernandez’s claim that he was arr rested for his failure to appear on December 13, 2013, and that he is therefore entitled to credit .in case number 2014-CF-241 for jail time served from that date until sentencing — a total of 288 days — we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to award the additional jail credit.
Reversed and remanded,
CASANUEVA, KELLY, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bronk v. State, 25 So. 3d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Cebert H. Snell v. State, 890 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Keyambay LEE v. State, 890 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)