RANCIFER LYNN BROWN
v.
THE 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 defendant is entitled to credit for time served when resentenced for the same crime, and the trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify a sentencing order absent a timely motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.800(b).
[1] A criminal defendant is entitled to credit for time served when resentenced for the same crime, and such credit must be reflected in the written sentencing order to compo…
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“When a criminal defendant is sentenced after being convicted of a crime and serves some portion of that sentence, he or she is entitled to receive credit for the actual service of that sentence, or any portion thereof, in a resentencing for the same crime.”
Citation to State v. Rabedeau regarding the entitlement to credit for time served in resentencing.
Rancifer Lynn Brown was resentenced on January 6, 2023. The written resentencing order failed to award credit for time served, although the trial cour…
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.
FERNANDEZ, C.J.
Rancifer Lynn Brown appeals the resentencing order rendered by the trial court on January 6, 2023, raising essentially two issues, 1) that the trial court failed to award credit for time served as required by Florida law, and 2) that the trial court was without jurisdiction to clarify or modify the sentence imposed on January 6, 2023. The State of Florida filed its answer agreeing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to amend the appellant’s sentence and suggested remanding to the trial court to award credit for time served as required by Florida law.
Having reviewed the record and considered the issues raised on appeal, this court concludes that the trial court erred in failing to award credit for time served as required by Florida law. See State v. Rabedeau, 2 So. 3d 191, 193 (Fla. 2009) (“When a criminal defendant is sentenced after being convicted of a crime and serves some portion of that sentence, he or she is entitled to receive credit for the actual service of that sentence, or any portion thereof, in a resentencing for the same crime.”). On the second issue articulated above, we note that the resentencing order of January 6, 2023, did not award credit for time served; however, the transcript of the hearing does reflect the trial court’s pronouncement that the appellant receive credit for the time that he has previously served in prison. The State rightfully concedes that the appellant is entitled to credit for time served. 2 Accordingly, the resentencing order of January 6, 2023, is affirmed and any subsequent order entered by the trial court with the intent to clarify or amend the sentence imposed on January 6, 2023, is quashed as the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter any such orders absent the filing of a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.800(b). See Spear v. State, 341 So. 3d 1106, 1110 (Fla. 2022). This cause is remanded to the trial court to correct the sentencing order so that it comports to the oral pronouncement awarding appellant credit for time served. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rabedeau, 2 So. 3d 191 (Fla. 2009)
- Spear v. State, 341 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 2022)