MARY HELEN GILES, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence for uttering a forged instrument. The appellant argued she should receive credit for time served on a previous split sentence, but the appellate court found the record insufficient to support this claim and noted the issue was not raised below.
No, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. The record did not demonstrate whether the appellant served any part of the six months on the split sentence, nor was the issue raised in the trial court.
[1] A defendant must raise an issue in the trial court to preserve it for appellate review.
[2] A defendant may test the legality of a sentence by filing a motion under Fla.R.Crim.P. …
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 record before this Court, however, does not show whether appellant served a part or all of the six months split sentence.”
Establishes the lack of evidence in the record to support the appellant's claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant pled guilty to uttering a forged instrument and was placed on probation. She subsequently violated probation multiple times, leading to revo…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant pled guilty to a charge of uttering a forged instrument and was placed on probation for five years with adjudication of guilt withheld. Subsequently, she was charged with violation of probation, entered a plea of no contest, and her probation was modified. Thereafter, appellant was again charged with violation of probation by uttering a forged instrument and pled no contest to the violation and pled guilty to the charge of uttering a forged instrument. Her probation was revoked and she was adjudicated guilty of both uttering offenses and was sentenced on each offense to serve five years imprisonment, six months of which was to be served in the county jail after which she was to be placed on probation for three years. The sentences were to run concurrently. She was given credit for all jail time previously served though the amount thereof was not specified. Later, appellant was again charged with violation of her probation by uttering a forged instrument and she again pled guilty to the probation violation and to the substantive crime. She had previously been adjudged guilty of the crimes for which she was serving probation, and the court adjudged her guilty of the new offense of uttering a forged instrument and then sentenced, her to five-year concurrent sentences in the state penitentiary with credit for 40 days jail time previously served.
Appellant contends here that the trial court erred in not giving her credit for six months that she served previously on the split sentence citing State v. Jones, 327 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1976).
The record before this Court, however, does not show whether appellant served a part or all of the six months split sentence. Also, it does not appear that appellant raised this question in the trial court.
The judgment and sentence are affirmed without prejudice to appellant to test the legality of the sentence by filing in the trial court a motion under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.
McCORD, C. J., and SMITH and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vanderblomen v. State, 709 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Mendenhall v. State, 419 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Wargo v. State, 393 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Cooper v. State, 379 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Wright v. State, 355 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Giles v. State, 350 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In fact, at one point this court had to clarify that while such jail or prison credit claims were authorized in motions filed pursuant to rule 3.850, they could nevertheless still be raised on direct appeal. See Polk v. State, 4…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jones, 327 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1976)