CHARLES PATRICK SOUTHARD, 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 court held that the defendant failed to prove he was incarcerated in California pursuant to a Florida detainer, and thus did not sustain his burden to demonstrate error.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to uttering forgery and was convicted. He sought credit for time spent in a California jail pending his return to Fl…
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 Burden Of Proof On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
Appellant entered pleas of nolo conten-dere to, and was convicted of, two counts of uttering a forgery. He was sentenced pursuant to the two convictions and argues on appeal that the trial court erred in not giving him credit for time spent in a Santa Barbara, California, county jail pending his return to Florida to answer the charges. At our request the parties have briefed this issue.
It is appellant’s contention that Section 921.161(1),1 Florida Statutes must be interpreted to include all time spent in any county jail, whether it be in Florida or some other jurisdiction. This issue has been decided adversely to the appellant’s contention in Karlin v. State, 302 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
We find it unnecessary to reach a conclusion in the case sub judice. Appellant has failed to demonstrate, either in the trial court or before this Court, that he was in fact incarcerated in California pursuant to a Florida detainer. The record is void of any official reference to any incarceration in California, whether it be pursuant to a Florida detainer or California charges. It being the burden of the appellant to demonstrate error, we therefore find that he has failed to sustain that burden. The sentence and conviction are therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur. . § 921.161(1), Fla.Stat. “A sentence of imprisonment shall not begin to run before the date it is imposed, but the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time he spent in the county jail before sentence. The credit must be for a specified period of time and shall be provided for in the sentence.” (emphasis added).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Schubert v. State, 302 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Kurlin v. State, 302 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)