DANIEL J. LEVITAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Gain Time cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
LETTS and STONE, JJ., concur. GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.
GLICKSTEIN, Judge,
concurring specially.
As I understand this pro se appeal from denial of a motion for post conviction relief, which denial was, upon relinquishment of jurisdiction, effectively modified to a partial grant, there are basically two issues: Whether appellant’s written sentence for one of two sets of offenses varied from what the judge announced in court; and whether appellant failed to receive, when he was imprisoned anew for violating his probation, proper credit for time previously served on a split prison/probation sentence.
Inasmuch as appellant is now on probation, I would favor dismissing the appeal as moot, without prejudice. Appellant cannot be affected by the matters on appeal, except, arguably, if he violates his probation. What is arguable will become clearer below.
It does appear from the record furnished on appeal that there was no discrepancy between the oral and written sentences, as appellant claimed. Thus that issue could properly be affirmed. As to the second issue, it is not clear whether appellant received full credit for time actually served during his earlier incarceration, albeit that the trial court upon relinquishment of jurisdiction granted appellant previously earned gain time.
This court presumably may affirm as to the second issue because appellant did not carry his burden of showing on the record that he failed to receive such credit. I prefer dismissal without prejudice as moot, so as to assure that, in the event appellant has reason in the future to try to establish a right to such credit, the issue is not viewed as res judicata.
I do not say that, if appellant was entitled to such credit and failed to receive it, the law requires that he be given this credit at a future time should he violate his present probation. I merely prefer not to foreclose his opportunity to litigate this point, if the circumstance arises.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Irizarry v. State, 578 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…s to Irizarry’s final point on rehearing, we adhere to our original opinion with respect to the permissible grounds for departure on the new substantive offense. See also Cabrera v. State, 576 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Contra Maxwell v. State, 576 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Rehearing granted in part, denied in part.…
-
Leola A. Knight v. State, 579 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Appellant seeks review of a sentence imposed upon a finding that appellant had violated certain conditions of her probation. Appellee concedes that the sentence exceeded the one-cell guidelines increase authorized by Maxwell v. State, 576 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and Sanders v. State, 560 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Accordingly, we vacate the departure sentence imposed by the trial court, and remand for resentencing within the guidelines range one-cell increase. As in Maxwell, we cert…
-
Taylor v. State, 586 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…a.2d DCA 1990) (en banc), and certify to the Florida Supreme Court the same question that we certified in Williams as being one of great public importance. We further certify that our decision in Williams is in direct conflict with Maxwell v. State, 576 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence