DARRELL V. ROUNDTREE, 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 trial court erred in denying post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing on issues of jail time credit and restitution, and that written probation conditions must conform to oral pronouncements.
[1] A defendant is entitled to credit for time served in jail while awaiting admission to a drug program, even if not explicitly reflected in initial sentencing documents, if…
[2] A trial court must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing additional restitution, or demonstrate retained jurisdiction to enter such an order.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought post-conviction relief, claiming entitlement to additional jail time credit, challenging a restitution order entered without a hearin…
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 Written Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Darrell V. Roundtree appeals from an order denying his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, but with attachment of record excerpts. Three issues raised in appellant’s motion, jail time credit, restitution, and unannounced conditions of probation, have merit and warrant further consideration.
We reverse and remand. Appellant claims that he is entitled to additional credit for time served against his prison sentence on the grounds that he spent thirteen months and sixteen days in jail while waiting admission to the sheriffs drug program. His sentencing documents reflect a credit for only 252 days’ jail time. Since the attachments to the order denying relief do not refute appellant’s claim for additional credit, we remand for either an evidentiary hearing or attachment of additional record excerpts to the order demonstrating that the appellant did, in fact, receive the appropriate credit for time served.
Appellant also challenges the restitution issue maintaining that the new restitution amount was added as part of his latest sentence without a restitution hearing. There is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the appellant had notice or an opportunity to be heard before additional restitution was ordered. On remand, the trial court should either attach record excerpts to show that it had retained jurisdiction to enter the restitution order, or vacate the restitution provisions that were not in the original sentencing order.
Finally, as to the appellant’s position that his written probation order included additional conditions that were not orally pronounced, an allegation that is supported by the excerpts attached to the order denying relief, we hold that the written conditions of probation must conform with those which were orally pronounced. Williamson v. State, 569 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
Reversed and remanded for evidentiary hearing or additional record excerpts, and correction of appellant’s sentence to conform with the court’s oral pronouncement.
DELL, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 664 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…im that if he did not receive credit against his prison term for the 41 days he spent in jail on his original offense that would entitle him to relief under rule 3.850, unless the record conclusively disproves his allegation. See Roundtree v. State, 661 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Because the record does not conclusively demonstrate that the appellant received credit for the time he spent in jail awaiting sentencing on his original offense, we reverse and remand to determine whether the appellant was cred…
-
Chandler v. State, 671 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…on until a hearing could be conducted on such. Nevertheless, the trial court entered the restitution order without affording appellant an opportunity to be heard on the [*876] matter. The state concedes the trial court erred. See Roundtree v. State, 661 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Accordingly, the restitution order is reversed without prejudice to enter another order after conducting a restitution hearing. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED. DELL, POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Williamson v. State, 569 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)