Hagley v. State, 5D12–4195.

Citation140 So.3d 678
Decision Date06 June 2014
Docket NumberNo. 5D12–4195.,5D12–4195.
PartiesThomas HAGLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

ORFINGER, J.

Thomas Hagley appeals his sentences, as amended, for violating probation (“VOP”) in four separate felony cases. In each of the cases, Hagley's probation was revoked based on a new law violation. The trial judge's oral pronouncement of sentence was “eighteen months Department of [C]orrections, concurrent with each other, less credit for time served, but consecutive to any sentence he is currently serving.” The written sentencing orders, entered later the same day, awarded Hagley almost 500 days of jail credit in each case. Believing the amount was overstated, the State filed a Motion to Clarify Sentence,” arguing that the trial court's written orders contained scrivener's errors regarding the amount of jail credit. The court ultimately agreed, and reduced Hagley's jail credit in each of the cases to zero. Hagley asserts this modification of his sentences violated his double jeopardy rights. While we disagree with Hagley's double jeopardy argument, we reverse the sentences because Hagley is entitled to a determination of the correct amount of jail credit earned on each case.

Generally, a court's pronouncement of a sentence becomes final when the sentencing hearing ends. E.g., Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So.2d 857, 858 (Fla.1973); Comtois v. State, 891 So.2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “Once a sentence has been imposed and the person begins to serve the sentence, that sentence may not be increased without running afoul of double jeopardy principles.” Ashley v. State, 850 So.2d 1265, 1267 (Fla.2003); see Dunbar v. State, 89 So.3d 901, 905 (Fla.2012) (reiterating that double jeopardy is offended when altered sentence is more onerous and “disrupts the defendant's legitimate expectations of finality”). However, that does not mean that once a sentence is orally pronounced, mistakes in the resulting sentencing order cannot be corrected. Florida has long recognized a court's inherent power to correct clerical errors such as calculation of jail credit. When sentencing documents erroneously over-report the amount of jail time actually served by a defendant prior to sentencing, and the error is apparent on the face of the record, this Court has held that there is no double jeopardy violation if the court simply corrects the jail credit award to accurately reflect the amount of time served. Gallinat v. State, 941 So.2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).1

Here, the oral pronouncement was simply that Hagley would receive jail credit; it mentioned no specific amount. Therefore, the court was allowed to correct the jail time credit if the amount of credit reflected in the initial sentencing orders was erroneous. However, instead of recalculating credit, the trial court stripped Hagley of all jail credit in his VOP cases, contradicting the oral pronouncement. This was error. Hagley is entitled to the correct amount of credit in each case.2Ransone v. State, 48 So.3d 692, 694 (Fla.2010); Daniels v. State, 491 So.2d 543, 545 (Fla.1986); see§ 921.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2011) (providing “the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time she or he spent in the county jail before sentence” and that “credit must be for a specified period of time and shall be provided for in the sentence”). Unfortunately, the record does not reveal how much credit Hagley is entitled to receive in his VOP cases. On remand, a hearing will be necessary to determine the correct amount.

Further, as the State concedes, the trial court must also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Spear v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 17 Abril 2020
    ... ... Based upon this letter, the trial court, citing to this court's opinions in Gallinat and Hagley v. State , 140 So. 3d 678, 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (recognizing that a court has the "inherent power to correct clerical errors such as calculation ... ...
  • Wells v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 26 Abril 2019
    ..."additional credit" for "a total of 473 days jail credit" corrected a clerical error in Wells's sentence. See Hagley v. State, 140 So. 3d 678, 679 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) ("Florida has long recognized a court's inherent power to correct clerical errors such as calculation of jailcredit."......
  • Miller v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corrs.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 4 Enero 2022
    ... ... MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents-Appellees. No. 21-10233United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh ... Miller's sentence. See Hagley v. State, 140 ... So.3d 678, 679 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) ("Florida has ... long ... ...
  • Miller v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 20 Noviembre 2020
    ...the award of jail credit is ministerial and the amended judgment relates back to the date of the original judgment. Hagley v. State, 140 So. 3d 678, 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ("Florida has long recognized a court's inherent power to correct clerical errors such as calculation of jail credit."......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Judgment and sentence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 30 Abril 2021
    ...pronouncement included jail time credit, and defendant was entitled to receive the correct amount of such credit. Hagley v. State, 140 So.3d 678 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) The court errs in summarily denying a 3.850 motion seeking additional credit for time served when defendant alleges that he wa......

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