Bryant v. State
Decision Date | 31 January 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 3D17–2237,3D17–2237 |
Citation | 240 So.3d 55 |
Parties | James Allen BRYANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Allen Bryant, in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.
James Allen Bryant appeals an order on his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) postconviction motion seeking both: (i) a correction of jail credit, and (ii) prison credit for the time Bryant served in prison between his initial conviction and the date of Bryant's second conviction after retrial. While the trial court found that Bryant was entitled both to a correction of jail credit and to prison credit, the court declined to determine the exact number of days he should receive.1
First, we reverse that portion of the trial court's order finding that Bryant is entitled to a correction of jail credit. A claim for jail credit must be raised under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. See Curtis v. State, 197 So.3d 135, 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) . Though the trial court properly treated Bryant's jail credit claim as being raised under rule 3.801,2 the jail credit claim is nevertheless untimely. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801 (); Narayan v. State, 149 So.3d 739, 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ().
Second, we affirm that portion of the trial court's order determining that Bryant is entitled to prison credit. The October 22, 1993 sentencing order reflects that the box for prison credit was unchecked. On this appeal, the State properly and commendably concedes that Bryant is entitled to prison credit for the time Bryan served in prison between his initial conviction and the date of Bryant's second conviction after retrial. Our judicial labor on this issue, however, is not done.
"Once the sentencing judge has awarded a defendant prior prison credit, the Department of Corrections has primary responsibility for calculating the credit." Hardenbrook v. State, 953 So.2d 717, 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). It is, therefore, "permissible for the trial court to delegate to DOC the administrative task of calculating the amount of prison credit which is due" after the court fulfills its responsibility of ordering that prison credit be provided. Thistle v. State, 769 So.2d 1149, 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Although the trial court in this case determined that Bryant is entitled to prison credit, it does not appear that the trial court ever delegated the responsibility of calculating the amount of...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Spear v. State
-
Utria v. State
...plea agreement. Utria appeals. Rule 3.801 is the exclusive means to request or challenge pre-sentence jail time credit. Bryant v. State, 240 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (holding Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 is the exclusive method for seeking a correction of jail credit). Unlik......
-
Garcia v. State, 3D18-1485
...to establish defendant is not entitled to relief); Cox v. State, 221 So.3d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (same). See also Bryant v. State, 240 So.3d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (holding Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 is the exclusive method for seeking a correction of jail credit, and a motion......
-
Spear v. State
...credit is for the trial court to defer prison credit calculations to the Department of Corrections. Id. ; see also Bryant v. State , 240 So. 3d 55, 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (explaining that once the trial court determined that a defendant is entitled to prison credit upon resentencing, the Dep......
-
Judgment and sentence
...calculate credit; therefore, proper for court to delegate to DOC administrative task of calculating prior prison credit. Bryant v. State, 240 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) Where the record clearly and unequivocally establishes the trial court’s articulated sentencing goal and further establi......