Brown v. State
Citation | 427 So.2d 821 |
Decision Date | 09 March 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-1087,82-1087 |
Parties | George BROWN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jerry Hill, Public Defender, Bartow, and Deborah A. Adamson, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David T. Weisbrod, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
We affirm appellant's judgment and sentence for second degree grand theft in violation of section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1981), and resisting arrest with violence in violation of section 843.01, Florida Statutes (1981). However, it appears that appellant has been deprived of fifteen days of jail time credit. For the reasons hereafter expressed, we hold that appellant's deprivation of jail time credit is not a result of error by the trial court and cannot be raised or corrected by this direct appeal.
The fifteen-day period of incarceration for which it appears appellant has not received jail time credit was served in county jail following his conviction and sentencing on April 13, 1982, and preceding his transfer to the state correctional institute on April 28, 1982. Under the provisions of section 921.161(2), Florida Statutes (1981), a defendant must receive jail time credit for all postconviction and postsentencing incarceration in county jail that is served prior to being placed in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The statute further provides that upon delivery of the prisoner to the Department of Corrections, the sheriff shall certify in writing, generally on a receipt for prisoner form, the date that the sentence was imposed and the date that the prisoner was delivered to the Department of Corrections. The statute establishes that the receipt for prisoner form, which is statutorily referred to as a certificate, shall serve as prima facie evidence of the facts certified in the form.
An examination of the record discloses that appellant's receipt for prisoner form specifies that appellant was delivered by the sheriff to the Department of Corrections on April 28, 1982, fifteen days following the imposition of appellant's sentence. The record further indicates that appellant remained incarcerated in county jail during this fifteen-day interim period.
Accordingly, appellant's contention that he has been deprived of fifteen days of jail time credit is correct. The text of section 921.161(2) implicitly imposes upon the Department of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Department of Corrections, State of Fla. v. Mattress, 96-1205
...DCA 1994); Henderson v. State, 632 So.2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Reynolds v. State, 590 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Brown v. State, 427 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also § 921.161(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); Bland v. State, 664 So.2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Grimes v. State, 657 So.2d 9......
-
Department of Juvenile Justice v. J.R.
... ... Rogers, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Daniel A. David, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for the State of Florida ... ON APPELLEE'S MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS APPEAL ... PER CURIAM ... The Department of Juvenile ... authority to regulate the placement of a sentenced defendant in the prison system, citing Article II, Section 3, Florida Constitution (1968), Brown v. State, 427 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Gross, 421 So.2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and ... ...
-
Henderson v. State
...credit after sentencing did not impact the legality of the sentence, and thus was not properly before the trial court); Brown v. State, 427 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also Sec. 921.161(2), Fla.Stat. Henderson's entitlement to relief, if any, is properly sought through administrative ......
-
Hidalgo v. State, 98-1697.
...if dissatisfied with the outcome. Washington v. State, 662 So.2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (citation omitted); Brown v. State, 427 So.2d 821, 821-22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We affirm the trial court's order on this VII. For the reasons stated, the order under review is affirmed in part, re......