DAVID JONES, 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.
David Jones appealed the amount of jail credit awarded in his sentence. The trial court initially awarded 629 days of credit for time served in its written sentencing order, but the state moved to correct this as a sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), reducing the credit to 164 days on the first count and zero on the second count. The appellate court reversed, holding that the state's motion was improper because it neither benefited the defendant nor corrected a scrivener's error.
The state's motion to correct sentencing under Rule 3.800(b) was improper because it neither benefited the defendant nor corrected a scrivener's error, as required by the rule. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting the state's motion, and the original sentence awarding 629 days' credit must be reinstated.
[1] A motion to correct a sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) filed by the state is permissible only if the correction benefits the defendant o…
[2] Reducing a defendant's credit for time served does not constitute a correction of a scrivener's error when the purpose is to conform the written order to the court's oral…
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“Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), the state may file a motion to correct a sentencing error "only if the correction of the sentencing error would benefit the defendant or to correct a scrivener's error."”
Establishes the strict limitations on the state's authority to file motions to correct sentencing errors
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was sentenced to two consecutive five-year prison terms. The trial court did not mention jail credit during oral sentencing but awarded 629 days…
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 Credit For Jail Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals the amount of jail credit awarded following his sentence to two consecutive five-year prison terms. In orally pronouncing the sentence, the court did not make any statements with respect to credit for time served. Subsequently, in its written sentencing order, the court gave appellant 629 days’ credit for time served on both counts. The state moved to correct a sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), arguing that appellant was entitled to only 164 days credit for time served on the first count and no credit for time served on the second count. The lower court granted the state’s motion, and following the denial of appellant’s own 3.800 motion, appellant appealed.
Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), the state may file a motion to correct a sentencing error “only if the correction of the sentencing error would benefit the defendant or to correct a scrivener’s error.” In this case, the state’s 3.800(b) motion neither benefited appellant nor corrected a scrivener’s error. See Linnon v. State, 988 So.2d 70, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (adding a mandatory minimum term to the defendant’s sentence was not permitted because it did not benefit the defendant); Thomas v. State, 648 So.2d 298, 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (reducing the defendant’s credit for time served did not correct a clerical error because “the purpose of the order was not to conform the order to the court’s oral pronouncement”). As such, the state’s motion was not permit*704ted under rule 3.800(b). Therefore, we reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the original sentence. We find the remaining issues on appeal to be without merit and affirm without comment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
GERBER, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Linnon v. State, 988 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Thomas v. State, 648 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)