BARNEY BUFORD HUNT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1975-09-10
No. X-209
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
318 So. 2d 523 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1975) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Barney Hunt was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to six years imprisonment. The appellate court reversed the sentencing order and directed the trial court to give Hunt credit for time previously spent in jail pending trial, based on a subsequently-enacted statutory amendment requiring such credit.


Holding

The court held that an appellate court applies the law in effect at the time the appeal is decided in determining the correctness of a judgment, and therefore Hunt is entitled to jail time credit. The sentencing order was reversed with directions that the trial court resentence Hunt with credit for time spent in jail, or alternatively enter an order reducing the sentence.


Headnotes

[1] A court may apply statutory amendments enacted after sentencing but before appeal to determine the correctness of the judgment.

[2] Appellate courts may remand cases with directions to grant jail time credit when the law has been amended to require such credit.

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 intelligence

Key Quotes

“an appellate court will apply the law which obtains at the time the appeal is decided in determining the correctness of the order or judgment before it”

Establishes the principle that retroactive application of favorable statutory amendments occurs at the appellate stage, not limited to the law in effect at sentencing.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Hunt was convicted on November 15, 1972, of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to six years imprisonment. He had been…

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.


Opinion of the Court
McCORD, Judge.

McCORD, Judge.

On November IS, 1972, appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced to six years imprisonment. He filed a motion for new trial on November 25, 1972, upon which a hearing was held and an order denying same was inadvertently styled in a different case number and erroneously filed. It subsequently came to the court’s attention that appellant’s right to appeal had been denied because of such error and the court then entered an order on November 19, 1974, denying the motion for new trial, which order was properly filed on that date. This appeal is from the judgment and conviction and the denial of the motion for new trial entered on November 19, 1974.

Appellant contends that he is entitled to credit on his six year sentence for the time he was held in the county jail on the charge prior to sentence. At the time of sentence, there was no statutory requirement that jail time credit be given on a sentence. Subsequently, § 921.161(1), Florida Statutes, was amended by Ch. 73-71, Laws of Florida, which requires that such credit be given. We previously held in Joins v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 287 So. 2d 742 and Hollingshead v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 292 So. 2d 617, that an appellate court will apply the law which obtains at the time the appeal is decided in determining the correctness of the order or judgment before it and remanded those cases to the trial court with directions to give jail time credit. Therefore, the order of sentencing is reversed with directions that the trial court resentence appellant giving due credit for the time earlier spent in jail, or the trial court may enter an order reducing the sentence without calling the defendant back before the court.

Reversed with directions.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Howell v. State, 379 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
    …79). In the present case appellant was sentenced more than two years before the 1977 amendments. While certain changes effective during the pend-ency of a direct appeal have been given retroactive application in limited circumstances (Hunt v. State, 318 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and Collins v. Wainwright, 311 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)), such application has been denied when the issue is raised by collateral proceeding. Heilmann v. State, 310 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Gay v. State, 330 So. 2d 1…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw