Hall v. Moore, No. 1D00-931.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation777 So.2d 1105
PartiesJames E. HALL, Petitioner, v. Michael W. MOORE, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 1D00-931.
Decision Date31 January 2001

777 So.2d 1105

James E. HALL, Petitioner,
v.
Michael W. MOORE, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent

No. 1D00-931.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 31, 2001.


777 So.2d 1106
James E. Hall, Pro Se, for Petitioner

Wendy Benner-Leon, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

James E. Hall filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking review of the lower court's order denying his Petition for Writ of Mandamus. We grant the petition and quash the order below.

In three separate proceedings, Hall received a series of consecutive sentences. He would first serve four and one-half years, followed by a 20-year habitual felony offender sentence (with 311 days of jail credit), and then a final three-year term.1 However, after he began serving the first portion of his sentences, the convictions that resulted in the habitual felony offender sentence were reversed. See Hall v. State, 634 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Following a new trial, he was again convicted and sentenced as an habitual felony offender. This time, he received a 13-year habitual felony offender sentence that was again imposed consecutive to his other sentences. The new sentence was imposed three days prior to his completion of the first segment of his consecutive sentences.

Initially, the trial court awarded Hall 442 days of jail credit, as well as any prison time that he may have already served on this sentence. The trial court later amended the sentence by reducing the amount of jail credit back to the original 311 days he had received before the first sentence was imposed. Hall filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence in 1995, seeking an award of over 1,000 days of credit for the time he had spent in custody between his arrest and the second trial. Despite the fact that he had never begun to serve any of his habitual offender sentence prior to the sentence imposed after the new trial, the trial court granted the motion and specifically ordered that Hall receive 1,012 days of credit for time previously served. The order did not delegate to the Department the task of determining whether Hall was entitled to credit for any pre-sentence prison time and, if so, how much.

Despite the specific order, the Department determined that Hall was not entitled to 693 of the 1,012 days because this represented the time that he was in Department custody and serving his four...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Rood v. State, No. 1D01-794.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 30 Julio 2001
    ...[of Corrections] does not have the authority to review and reject a trial court's specific award of credit." Hall v. Moore, 777 So.2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). To remedy this apparent error on the part of the Department of Corrections, however, appellant must exhaust available ad......
1 cases
  • Rood v. State, No. 1D01-794.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 30 Julio 2001
    ...[of Corrections] does not have the authority to review and reject a trial court's specific award of credit." Hall v. Moore, 777 So.2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). To remedy this apparent error on the part of the Department of Corrections, however, appellant must exhaust available ad......

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