MARY A. WALKER, 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 affirmed the sentence but noted that the appellant's jail credit claim lacks evidentiary support in the record and may be pursued by motion under rule 3.850.
A sentence that fails to grant proper credit for time served is illegal and may be corrected at any time, but such claims require substantiation in the court record.
[1] A sentence failing to grant proper credit for time served is an illegal sentence cognizable on direct appeal and correctable at any time, but the court record must demons…
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“[a] sentence which does not grant proper credit for time served is an illegal sentence which may be corrected at any time”
The court cited State v. Mancino for the principle that improper jail credit constitutes an illegal sentence subject to correction.
Mary A. Walker appealed her sentence, claiming entitlement to additional jail time credit for time served prior to sentencing.…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
We note, with respect to the jail time credit to which Appellant claims she is entitled, the supreme court, in State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998)(holding jail credit issues are cognizable under rule 3.800(a)), agreed that “[a] sentence which does not grant proper credit for time served is an illegal sentence which may be corrected at any time;” id. at 432 (quoting Hopping v. State, 650 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)).
Thus, Appellant’s jail credit claim would be cognizable on direct appeal. See Harriel v. State, 710 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(excepting claims of illegal sentence from rule that sentencing errors must be brought to the attention of the trial court before being raised on appeal).
However, there is nothing in the instant record which substantiates Appellant’s claim of entitlement to additional credit for jail time served prior to sentencing. Mancino limits the application of rule 3.800(a), in jail credit cases, to ones in which the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief. 714 So. 2d at 433.
Therefore, this affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant seeking additional credit by motion under rule 3.850.
STONE, C.J., DELL and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Dameion Harriel v. State, 710 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Hopping v. State, 650 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)