Narrative Opinion Summary
Appellant contended that the trial court incorrectly denied her credit for 171 days served in county jail on one of her sentences. The review of the case revealed that appellant had been sentenced in two separate matters for probation violations. In case no. 94-11203, she received a sentence of 364 days in jail with credit for time served. In case no. 94-439, she was sentenced to five years of incarceration, with credit for 159 days served based on the original state credit time log dated January 25, 1996. An amended log filed on February 22, 1996, corrected this to indicate that she was actually entitled to 171 days of credit. The court affirmed the appellant's convictions and sentences but remanded the case to the trial court to ensure she receives the accurate credit for time served, referencing Newman v. State, 575 So.2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Judges Parker and Threadgill concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Correction of Sentencing Errorssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court has the authority to remand a case to the trial court to correct errors regarding credit for time served, ensuring the sentence reflects the correct amount of time the appellant has already been incarcerated.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the appellant's convictions and sentences but remanded the case to the trial court to ensure she receives the accurate credit for time served, referencing Newman v. State, 575 So.2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Credit for Time Served in Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case emphasizes the necessity for accurate calculation of jail time credit in sentencing, as discrepancies can impact the length of incarceration.
Reasoning: The review of the case revealed that appellant had been sentenced in two separate matters for probation violations.
Judicial Concurrencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judges concurred with the decision to affirm the convictions while remanding for correction of the time served credit, indicating judicial agreement on the necessity of rectifying sentencing calculations.
Reasoning: Judges Parker and Threadgill concurred with the decision.