MICHAEL P. MONROE, JR.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A prisoner is not entitled to prison credit when a detainer has been issued rather than an arrest warrant. A court must account for jail time served in a county jail before sentencing and must either grant credit, attach portions of the record refuting the claim, or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A prisoner subject to a detainer issued by another jurisdiction is generally not entitled to prison credit in the jurisdiction that issued the detainer when sentenced aft…
[2] A court must account for all time a defendant spent in county jail before sentencing and must grant credit for such time unless it is conclusively refuted by attached cou…
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“When a detainer has been issued against a prisoner, generally the prisoner will not be entitled to prison credit in the case with the detainer when he is sentenced in that case following the completion of the sentence he is currently serving.”
Establishes the rule that detainers, unlike arrest warrants, generally preclude prison credit in the issuing jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMonroe was arrested in Hillsborough County in April 2016 and subject to probation orders in both Hillsborough and Polk Counties. He was sentenced to f…
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 Fla. Stat. § 921.161(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
MICHAEL P. MONROE, JR., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-795 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) )
Opinion filed May 3, 2019.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Neil A. Roddenbery, Judge.
Michael P. Monroe, Jr., pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa for Appellee.
ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.
The postconviction court summarily denied Michael P. Monroe, Jr.'s,
amended motion for prison and jail credit.1 We affirm as to the denial of prison credit
1As a request for prison credit, the amended motion is governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a); as a request for jail credit, it is governed by rule 3.801. See Bolduc v. State, 251 So. 3d 314, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).
but reverse for the postconviction court to further review Monroe's request for jail credit and to grant him additional credit, attach copies of the portions of the court records or files that support the denial of his request, or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Monroe was arrested for a criminal offense in Hillsborough County in April
2016 and detained in jail. At the time, he was subject to two orders of probation for earlier offenses committed in Hillsborough and Polk Counties. In his amended motion for prison and jail credit, Monroe asserted that while in the Hillsborough County jail, he had been served with a "warrantless arrest affidavit" or "detainer" from Polk County. He further asserted that in September 2016, he had been sentenced to fifteen months in state prison on the Hillsborough County cases. He asserted that while he was in prison,
the Polk County authorities had issued another "warrantless arrest affidavit."
Upon his release from prison, Monroe was sent to the Polk County jail,
and, in June 2017, he admitted the Polk County violation of probation (VOP) in exchange for a three-year prison sentence. The snap-out "memo of sentence" reflected that he was to be given "credit for t[ime] s[erved] in Hillsborough County for arrest in this
VOP (if any)," but the memo did not specify the number of days of credit. On October
17, 2017, however, the Department of Corrections (DOC), in response to an inquiry by
Monroe, indicated that DOC had credited him with 340 days of jail credit. Although the
DOC's response did not indicate the range or ranges of dates encompassed within that
340-day figure, Monroe's amended motion identified three separate periods during which he assertedly had been in jail, and those periods add up to 340 days.
Those periods do not include time that Monroe spent in prison on the
Hillsborough County cases or time that he spent in the Polk County jail between his release from prison on the Hillsborough County cases and his sentence to prison on the
Polk County VOP. In his amended motion, Monroe requested an additional 254 days of prison and jail credit for that entire period, which ran from September 27, 2016, to June
7, 2017.2 State, 900
So. 2d 702, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("When a detainer has been issued against a prisoner, generally the prisoner will not be entitled to prison credit in the case with the detainer when he is sentenced in that case following the completion of the sentence he is currently serving. See Gethers v. State, 838 So. 2d 504, 508 (Fla. 2003). On the other hand, if an arrest warrant is transmitted and a prisoner is arrested under the authority of that warrant, the prisoner may be entitled to credit because he is being held on both charges. [Id.] at 507."). We therefore affirm the postconviction court's denial of
Monroe's request for prison credit.
It does not appear, however, that the postconviction court accounted for the portion of the requested 254 days that Monroe had spent in the Polk County jail after his release from prison on the Hillsborough County cases but before he was sentenced to prison on the Polk County VOP. Monroe is entitled to credit for that
2Based on Monroe's assertion in his original motion for prison and jail credit, which the postconviction court dismissed with leave to amend, he appears to have been transported from prison to the Polk County jail on May 5, 2017.
period, assuming that it is not already incorporated into the 340 days of credit that he has been granted. See § 921.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) ("[T]he court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time she or he spent in the county jail before sentence."). Because the postconviction court failed to attach copies of portions of court records or files to refute this component of Monroe's claim, we cannot determine what, if any, jail credit he may be entitled to. We therefore reverse the postconviction court's denial of Monroe's claim as it pertains to jail credit. On remand,
the court may grant the additional credit, attach portions of the record that conclusively refute his clam, or conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue. The trial court may also consider requiring the State to respond to the motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P.
3.801(e) (incorporating rule 3.850(f)).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
LaROSE, C.J., and BLACK, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tyreik J. Smith v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)
-
Crawford v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Gethers v. State, 838 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2003)
- Norman v. State, 900 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Elton Bolduc v. State, 251 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)