TIMOTHY HENRY A/K/A ERIC HENRY, 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.
Appellant's sentence was reversed because jail time credit must be applied to each concurrent sentence, not just one, when concurrent sentences are imposed pursuant to a plea agreement.
When concurrent sentences are imposed, jail time credit for time served must be applied to each sentence, not allocated to only one sentence.
[1] When concurrent sentences are imposed pursuant to a plea agreement conditioning concurrent sentencing, jail time credit for time served must be applied to each sentence r…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“If concurrent sentences are imposed, each sentence must reflect proper jail time credit.”
Court's statement of the governing legal principle regarding application of jail time credit to concurrent sentences.
Timothy Henry was on probation when he committed delivery of cocaine. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to violating probation and the coca…
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 Delivery Of Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Timothy Henry, was on probation when he committed the offense of delivery of cocaine.1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Henry pled guilty to violating his probation and to the cocaine offense with the clear understanding that his sentences would run concurrent and total 4¾⅛ years’ incarceration. The trial judge sentenced defendant to time served for the probationary offense and to 4⅝ years for the cocaine offense, both sentences to run concurrent. The trial judge stated that no jail time credit would be awarded on the 4V2 year sentence since he was “crediting that on the violation of probation charge.” Defendant argues that he is entitled to credit against both sentences for time served in jail. We agree. If concurrent sentences are imposed, each sentence must reflect proper jail time credit. See Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986); Davis v. State, 543 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Since defendant’s guilty pleas were conditioned on receiving concurrent sentences, jail time credit should have been applied to each sentence. We therefore reverse defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
Judgment AFFIRMED; Sentence REVERSED and REMANDED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(1)(a)1„ Fla.Stat. (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harmon v. State, 599 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…llowed by two years community control with special conditions. As appellant asserts, this combination of incarceration and community control constitutes a departure from the guidelines. State v. VanKooten, 522 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1988); Phelps v. State, 583 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Because the record contains no written departure reasons, the sentence must be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing. The question then remains whether the trial court could once again depart from the guidelines if it…
-
Felty v. State, 616 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…mbined with prison time in any circumstance even if the total time does not exceed the maximum permitted range (the VanKooten rule). State v. VanKooten, 522 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1988); Harmon v. State, 599 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Phelps v. State, 583 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The second approach holds that the above VanKooten rule applies only where the combined sentences exceed the maximum period of incarceration permitted under the guidelines, reasoning that there is no departure unless the combin…
Authorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1986)
- Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Hammer v. State, 543 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)