RICHARD JOHN SIMARI, 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.
Conviction affirmed but reversed and remanded because trial court failed to give credit for pretrial jail time as required by statute.
A trial court must give credit for time spent in jail prior to sentencing under F.S. § 921.161(1).
[1] A trial court must give credit for time spent in pretrial custody when calculating a defendant's sentence under F.S. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted after jury trial of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and carrying a concealed firearm, receiving cons…
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 Sentencing Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction after a jury trial for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemean-or and carrying a concealed firearm, for which he received consecutive sentences of five years and one year. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by counsel and our consideration thereof requires a conclusion that appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudicial error during the trial proceedings below.
However, it does appear that the trial court failed to give credit for the time-appellant spent in jail prior to sentencing, contrary to F.S. § 921.161(1). We therefore reverse and remand this cause to the trial court with directions to modify the sentence by giving appellant credit for the number of days spent in jail prior to sentencing. Since said judgment and sentence to be entered on remand is corrective in nature and will be less than that already pronounced, the presence of appellant before the trial court is not required. Such may be done by order modifying sentence rather than resentencing appellant in open court. Larson v. State, 301 So. 2d 491 (Fla.App. 1st, 1974).
Reversed and remanded for correction of sentence.
JOHNSON, Acting C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coleman v. State, 326 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…have some effect on his right to parole, the case is remanded with directions to modify the sentence to give appellant the appropriate credit. The presence of the appellant will not be required for this purpose. Simari v. State, Fla.App. 1st, 1975, 309 So. 2d 183. In all other respects, the judgment and sentence are Affirmed. HOBSON, A. C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.…
-
Smith v. State, 691 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…le awaiting resentencing. Moore v. State, 634 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see also Goodman v. State, 683 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Appellant need not be present for this calculation and correction to take place. See Moore; Simari v. State, 309 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), dismissed, 328 So. 2d 844 (Fla.1976). AFFIRMED, REMANDED. KLEIN, PARIENTE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Larson v. State, 301 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)