ARTHUR DUNCAN, 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.
Arthur Duncan appealed his guilty plea conviction for burglary of a structure, challenging a discrepancy between his sentence documents. The trial court properly imposed a four-year sentence with 115 days jail time credit, but the Uniform Commitment to Custody omitted the jail time credit, and the appellate court ordered correction of this error.
The judgment and sentence as reflected in the Circuit Court Minute Book were affirmed, but the case was remanded to the trial court to correct the erroneous Uniform Commitment to Custody document that failed to include the 115 days of jail time credit.
[1] A Uniform Commitment to Custody document that purports to deprive a defendant of jail time credit provided in the judgment and sentence is erroneous.
[2] A judgment and sentence reflecting credit for jail time served is controlling over a subsequent Uniform Commitment to Custody document that omits such credit.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Insofar as the said Uniform Commitment to Custody of Division of Corrections purports to deprive appellant of the 115 days jail time provided for in the judgment and sentence as reflected by the Circuit Court Minute Book, it is erroneous.”
The core holding establishing that the commitment document's omission of jail time credit violated the trial court's sentence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuncan entered a guilty plea to burglary of a structure. The Circuit Court imposed a four-year sentence with 115 days of jail time credit served in Ba…
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 Correction Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Judge.
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to burglary of a structure. The Circuit Court Minute Book reflects a judgment and sentence containing the following recitation:
“You, Arthur Duncan, having entered a plea of Guilty to the crime of Burglary of Structure, Count I of the Information, the court adjudges you guilty. It is the judgment of the court and the sentence of the law that you, Arthur Duncan, for your said offense, be committed to the custody of the Director of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation of the State of Florida for a period of Four (4) Years. You are given credit on this sentence for One Hundred Fifteen (115) days dail time served in the County Jail of Bay County, Florida.”
Thereafter there was entered by the Clerk of the Court a “Uniform Commitment to Custody of Division of Corrections” which recited the offense, the date of conviction, the date sentence was imposed and designated the term of sentence as being four years without any reference to credit for jail time. Said document is styled in the name of the State of Florida against Arthur Duncan and is directed “TO THE SHERIFF OF SAID COUNTY AND THE DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS OF SAID STATE, GREETING:” It recites, inter alia
“ * * * this is to command you, the said Division of Correction, * * * to keep and safely imprison the said defendant for the term of said sentence in the institution in the state correctional system to which you, the said Division of Corrections, may cause the said defendant to be conveyed or thereafter transferred. And these presents shall be your authority for the same. Herein fail not.”
Insofar as the said Uniform Commitment to Custody of Division of Corrections purports to deprive appellant of the 115 days jail time provided for in the judgment and sentence as reflected by the Circuit Court Minute Book, it is erroneous. (See F.S. 921.161)
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence (as reflected by the Circuit Court Minute Book) are affirmed but we remand to the trial court to correct the erroneous sentence reflected in the Uniform Commitment to Custody of Division of Corrections. It is not necessary that appellant be present when the correction be effected.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
McCORD, C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harriman v. State, 366 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…e for burglary are affirmed. However, the cause is remanded to correct the erroneous sentence set forth in the “Uniform Commitment to Custody of Division of Corrections” which fails to specify credit for jail time previously served. Duncan v. State, 354 So. 2d 451 (Fla.1st DCA 1978). Appellant need not be present for this purpose. MILLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH and MELVIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Jones v. State, 357 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…eference to any credit for jail time. The Uniform Commitment to Custody of Division of Corrections is erroneous in that it purports to deprive appellant of the 85 days jail time required under F.S. 921.161. This case is analogous to Duncan v. State, 354 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Therefore, the judgment and sentence, as reflected in the circuit court minute book are affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court to correct the erroneous sentence which is reflected in the Uniform Commitment to Cu…