ROMUALDAS J. JABLONSKIS, 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 Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion for jail time credit under Florida statute 921.161, holding that the court must either enter a detailed order with supporting documentation or conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine proper credit for pre-sentence incarceration.
The trial court erred in denying the motion without either entering an order showing appellant received proper credit for all jail time served before sentencing (supported by attached portions of court files and records) or conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine the factual issues necessary to establish that appellant received proper jail time credit under the statute.
[1] A defendant may be entitled to jail credit for time spent incarcerated on unrelated charges in another county if a warrant has been issued for the charges in the county s…
[2] A defendant is entitled to jail credit from the date a warrant is issued and transmitted to another county, even if the defendant is incarcerated on unrelated charges in…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Without conducting an evidentiary hearing and without attaching any portion of the case file or record, the sentencing court denied appellant's motion for jail time credit under section 921.161, Florida Statutes (1981).”
Establishes the trial court's procedural error in denying the motion summarily without a hearing or supporting documentation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Jablonskis filed a motion for jail time credit claiming entitlement to 109 days of pre-sentence incarceration, including time served in Illi…
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 Motion For Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Without conducting an evidentiary hearing and without attaching any portion of the case file or record, the sentencing court denied appellant’s motion for jail time credit under section 921.161, Florida Statutes (1981).1 The motion refers to sentences on three different charges and to pre-sentence incarceration in jail in Illinois as well as in Orange County, Florida. It may be that appellant is erroneously claiming credit for the same jail time against two or more sentences. See Lund v. State, 396 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Lawrence v. State, 306 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Miller v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
The motion claims entitlement to 109 days of pre-sentence jail time, but the motion does not clearly allege facts as to exactly when, where and for what periods of time appellant was incarcerated on what charges prior to which sentence. Nor does the judgment below show that appellant received credit for all jail time to which he was entitled. These are aspects of the difficulties involved in post-conviction motions claiming improper or insufficient credit for pre-sentence jail time. See Meintzer v. State, 399 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Under Rule 3.850 as presently written we must reverse and remand for the trial court to either (1) enter another order that on its face and by attached portions of the court files and records shows that appellant received proper credit for all jail time served before sentencing or (2) conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the questions of fact necessary to make a record demonstrating that appellant has received proper jail time credit under the statute.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. . The motion is properly treated as a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin v. State, 525 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…remedies can be, and should be, disregarded as unnecessary and surplus-age. . Harrison v. Wainwright, 408 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1982); Dowda v. State, 417 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Jablonskis v. State, 422 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Waite v. State, 423 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Delgado v. State, 423 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Lamar v. State, 443 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Hampton v. State, 446 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Scott v. State,…
-
Chaplin v. State, 473 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…alleged in this case can be analogized to those cases which have permitted post-conviction relief for errors in the computation of credit for jail time. Roesch v. State, 446 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Lamar v. State, supra; Jablonskis v. State, 422 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Although this type of sentencing error may be raised by way of direct appeal, the courts have nevertheless allowed it to be remedied in post-conviction proceedings under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. James v.…
-
Hampton v. State, 446 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…s case without prejudice to file an appropriate motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising the issue of proper credit for jail time served. Meintzer v. State, 399 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); see also Jablonskis v. State, 422 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). AFFIRMED. ORFINGER, C.J., and COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Meintzer v. State, 399 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Winston v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Miller v. State, 297 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Lawrence v. State, 306 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Holley v. State, 306 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Lund v. State, 396 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)