Carrier v. State, 4D05-2535.

Decision Date22 March 2006
Docket NumberNo. 4D05-2535.,4D05-2535.
Citation925 So.2d 386
PartiesAngelina May CARRIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and David John McPherrin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

HAZOURI, J.

Angelina May Carrier appeals from the trial court's denial of her request for credit for time served in the sheriff's drug farm program. Carrier contends that this is the functional equivalent of incarceration, thereby entitles her to credit for time spent in the drug farm facility.

This is the second time that this case has been before this court. Previously, in Carrier v. State, 894 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), we remanded the case to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine "whether the trial court erred in failing to award appellant, Angelina Carrier, credit for time served in the sheriff's drug farm program when it imposed sentence upon her finding her in violation of probation." Carrier, 894 So.2d at 1042.

Upon remand the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that Carrier was not entitled to credit for time served in the sheriff's drug farm program, because Carrier voluntarily entered the drug farm program as a part of her probation, and therefore, the time in the sheriff's drug farm program did not constitute the functional equivalent of jail time. We affirm.

The issue in this case is controlled by the recent decision in State v. Cregan, 908 So.2d 387 (Fla.2005). In Cregan, the supreme court specifically noted, "[t]ime spent in the control release program, or in a drug rehabilitation facility as a condition of probation, is not the functional equivalent of time spent in a county jail." Cregan, 908 So.2d at 389 (citations omitted).

The Cregan case was before the supreme court on a certified conflict between this court and the Second and Third District Courts of Appeal. See Toney v. State, 817 So.2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Molina v. State, 867 So.2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). In both Toney and Molina, the respective district courts held that the time a probationer spends in a post-conviction drug treatment facility is not creditable against a subsequent term in jail or prison. In approving both the Second and the Third District Courts of Appeal, and quashing this court's decision in Cregan v. State, 884 So.2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), the court held: "a defendant who violates the conditions of community control cannot be given credit against a subsequent term of incarceration for the time spent in community control." Cregan, 908 So.2d at 391; see § 948.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2003). "This prohibition applies when a defendant spends time in a drug rehabilitation facility as a condition of his community control." Cregan, 908 So.2d at 391.

Following the supreme court's decision in Cregan, this court was faced with the issue of whether a defendant would be entitled to post-conviction jail-time credit for 116 days that the defendant spent in the CARP drug treatment program while on community control. See Comer v. State, 909 So.2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). In affirming the trial court's denial of jail-time credit for time spent in CARP, this court noted the supreme court's opinion in Cregan and concluded that "[p]ost-conviction treatment in a drug rehabilitation facility as a condition of probation or community control is contractual in nature, not a coercive deprivation of liberty. A trial court may not give jail credit for time spent on probation or community control." Comer, 909 So.2d at 461 (citation omitted). In this case, Carrier, as part of her probation, voluntarily entered into the drug farm program and therefore there is no court ordered deprivation of liberty. As a result, Carrier's stay in the drug farm program cannot be considered a sentence for which jail-time credit can be awarded.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Bray
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 18, 2017
    ... ... See Comer v. State , 909 So.2d 460, 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ; Carrier v. State , 925 So.2d 386, 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ; see also Simpson v. State , 138 So.3d 538, 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ("[T]here is no credit against ... ...
  • McLeod v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 2011
    ... ... See Carrier v. State, 925 So.2d 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Nowell v. State, 742 So.2d 345, 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (explaining that test is whether stay in ... ...
  • Mazza v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 7, 2007
    ... ... See State v. Cregan, 908 So.2d 387, 389 (Fla.2005); Carrier v. State, 925 So.2d 386, 388 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 935 So.2d 1219 (Fla.2006); Comer v. State, 909 So.2d 460, 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). We ... ...
  • Waller v. State, 4D16–1268.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 21, 2016
    ... ... Carrier v. State, 925 So.2d 386, 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).However, a letter from the Sheriff's Office and records from the jail attached to the motion ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT