MILTON JEROME NEDD, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, RESPONDENT
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.
Milton Jerome Nedd petitioned for habeas corpus relief, alleging he was illegally incarcerated beyond his sentence expiration due to misconstruction of his four five-year sentences as consecutive rather than concurrent, and improper crediting of 153 days jail-time to only one sentence. The respondent conceded the petitioner's allegations were correct, and the court granted the habeas petition and ordered immediate release.
Petitioner's sentences are to be served concurrently because the sentencing court did not direct that two or more sentences be served consecutively. The 153 days of jail-time credit must be credited to each of the four concurrent sentences. Petitioner is immediately entitled to release from incarceration.
[1] Sentences are presumed to be concurrent unless the sentencing court expressly directs that they be served consecutively.
[2] Jail-time credit must be applied to each concurrent sentence, not just one.
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“because the sentencing court did not "direct that two or more of the sentences be served consecutively," the sentences are to be served concurrently”
Establishes that absent an explicit court direction, multiple sentences default to concurrent rather than consecutive service under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner received four five-year sentences. The sentencing court did not explicitly direct that the sentences be served consecutively, yet they were…
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner alleges that he is being illegally incarcerated beyond the expiration of his sentence, based on the misconstruction of the four five-year sentences which he received as consecutive, rather than concurrent. Petitioner also alleges that 153 days jail-time credit to which he was entitled was improperly credited to only one of the four sentences, rather than to all four. In response to the show cause order of this court, respondent does not dispute petitioner’s allegations, rather he concedes that they are correct. Respondent agrees that, because the sentencing court did not “direct that two or more of the sentences be served consecutively,” the sentences are to be served concurrently.
Section 921.16(1), Florida Statutes (1983). Respondent further concurs that the 153 days jail-time credit should have been credited to each of the four concurrent sentences. See Martin v. State, 452 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Blackwell v. State, 449 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Based on these facts, petitioner’s release date was recalculated, resulting in a release date of March 2, 1984. Respondent has therefore moved for remand to the trial court for the immediate entry of an order of release.
Such a remand is not necessary in this case, and the motion therefor is accordingly denied. Petitioner has alleged his immediate entitlement to release from incarceration and respondent has demonstrated, and concurs in, the correctness of that allegation. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted, and petitioner shall be immediately released from custody.
ERVIN, C.J., and THOMPSON and WIG-GINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shepard v. State, 459 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…erred in not crediting the full amount of time served to each sentence. Shepard’s contention finds support in recent decisions of the First and Second District Courts of Appeal. Martin v. State, 452 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Nedd v. Wainwright, 449 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Blackwell v. State, 449 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In each of those decisions our sister courts held that it was error for the trial court to award jail time credit on only one of two or more concurrent sentences and that f…
-
Vasquez v. State, 478 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…, 450 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). On the other hand, this court and the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal agree that a defendant’s jail time credit should be applied in full to each of his concurrent sentences. See Nedd v. Wainwright, 449 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Prentice v. State, 469 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); and Daniels v. State, 477 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Accordingly, the case is REVERSED and REMANDED for resentenc-ing in accordance with this opinion. SMITH, J., concurs…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Martin v. State, 452 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Blackwell v. State, 449 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)