Franklin v. State, BS-52
| Decision Date | 13 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. BS-52,BS-52 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2620,515 So.2d 400 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2620 Arthur O'Derrell FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
We affirm the judgments and sentences but remand for correction of the amount of credit for time served.
Appellant was initially convicted and sentenced for the commission of five felony offenses. In Franklin v. State, 476 So.2d 1346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the sentences were vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing because of the trial court's failure to comply with the requirements of Section 39.111(6), Florida Statutes, relating to the imposition of adult sentences upon juveniles.
A second sentencing hearing was conducted at which the trial court imposed the same concurrent adult sentences upon appellant, each sentence reflecting two years and 171 days credit. 1 In Franklin v State, 498 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the sentences were again reversed and the case remanded for resentencing because the record did not contain a written statement of reasons justifying the imposition of adult sanctions as required by Section 39.111(6).
A third sentencing hearing was held January 30, 1987. The same concurrent adult sentences were imposed, each sentence reflecting the same amount of credit as was reflected in the second round of sentences, namely, two years and 171 days. The trial judge entered an order setting forth his reasons justifying the imposition of adult sanctions in accordance with the requirements of Section 39.111(6).
Although more than a year passed between the second and the third round of sentences, the latter sentences provide for the same amount of jail credit as was provided for in the second round of sentences. Appellant is entitled to have the full amount of jail credit through the date of the last sentencings specified in his sentences. See Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1985), and Marshall v. State, 310 So.2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Further, since all of the sentences are concurrent, the full amount of credit must be specified with respect to each sentence. Daniels v. State, 491 So.2d 543 (Fla.1986).
Accordingly, this case is remanded with directions that the sentences be amended to provide for the correct amount of credit for jail time served by the appellant.
REMANDED.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vanderblomen v. State
...each of several concurrent sentences for all presentencing county jail time served on those counts. See also Franklin v. State, 515 So.2d 400, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Thus, it appears that Vanderblomen may be entitled to the claimed History of Jail/Prison Credit Claims Under Rule 3.800(a) ......
-
Moening v. State, 93-2296
...served. Brown v. State, 584 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); McCray v. State, 517 So.2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Franklin v. State, 515 So.2d 400, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In addition to the 10 1/2 months credit for time served in state custody, Moening seeks to obtain credit for the one ......
-
Bell v. State
...that the sentence be amended to state with specificity the proper amount of credit to be given for time served. See Franklin v. State, 515 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). AFFIRMED but remanded with directions. BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. 1 Bell v. State, 500 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).......
-
Kitchen v. State
...See Smith v. State, 691 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Brown v. State, 584 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Franklin v. State, 515 So.2d 400, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In accordance with the statute, the trial court must specifically state that time in the sentence. The trial court's mere refe......