Hardenbrook v. State, 1D06-0310.
Decision Date | 09 April 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 1D06-0310.,1D06-0310. |
Citation | 953 So.2d 717 |
Parties | Timothy HARDENBROOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Phil Patterson, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Felicia A. Wilcox, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
On this direct appeal from resentencing, Timothy Hardenbrook contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. He argues that he was not given enough credit for time he had spent in jail and, before he began the probationary portion of his probationary split sentence, in prison. We affirm.
On a plea of no contest to grand theft, he was sentenced in Bay County on April 7, 2000, to thirty months' imprisonment, to be followed by two years' probation. After he had served the prison term, he was released on probation, then arrested in Baker County on a new charge. While incarcerated in Baker County, on April 5, 2003, he was served with an arrest warrant issued on the basis of an affidavit alleging the offense in Baker County violated the conditions of his probation on the Bay County charge.
Convicted in Baker County, he served the sentence for that offense, which expired on November 15, 2005, before he was transported to Bay County. There probation was revoked and he was resentenced for grand theft. He claims that he is entitled to jail credit on the Bay County charge for the time that he was incarcerated in Baker County after he was served with the Bay County arrest warrant, a claim the trial judge rejected below.
Credit for the same jail time must be given on more than one sentence only when the sentences are concurrent. See Gethers v. State, 838 So.2d 504, 506 (Fla.2003) () (quoting Daniels v. State, 491 So.2d 543, 545 (Fla.1986)); Daniels, 491 So.2d at 545 () (quoting Martin v. State, 452 So.2d 938, 938-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)); Dawson v. State, 816 So.2d 1123, 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) () (emphasis supplied).
Mr. Hardenbrook concedes that his sentences are not concurrent but argues that they are not consecutive, either. He argues that there is a third category of sentences, into which his sentence falls, a category he denominates "free-standing." He argues that, because he completed the "free-standing" sentence imposed in Baker County before he was resentenced in Bay County, he is entitled to jail credit against both sentences for the time he spent in the Baker County jail. We reject the argument that the Bay County and Baker County sentences are not consecutive, and the notion that a sentence can be neither consecutive nor concurrent but "free-standing." See § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2005) (). While it may not be immediately clear that a sentence is consecutive, see Barnishin v. State, 927 So.2d 68, 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (), there can be no doubt here.
The present case does not involve guidelines sentences imposed simultaneously on the basis of a single scoresheet. Cf. Cook v. State, 645 So.2d 436, 438 (Fla.1994) (); Ingram v. State, 818 So.2d 636, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) () ; Moiter v. State, 644 So.2d 154, 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) ( ); Silvestrini v. State, 633 So.2d 1143, 1144-45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Mr. Hardenbrook is not entitled to additional credit against the Bay County (grand theft) sentence for the time he was incarcerated on the Baker County offense, because these sentences were consecutive.
In addition, Mr. Hardenbrook argues here as below that the trial court neglected to give him credit for time he spent in prison for grand theft before he was released on probation. The trial court acknowledged this omission in the original resentencing and filed an amended judgment and sentence in which it required the Department of Corrections to give Mr. Hardenbrook credit for prior prison time.1 See § 921.0017, Fla. Stat. (2005) ( ). The second resentencing thus corrected the error, and mooted the claim of failure to give credit for time spent in prison before probation.
Once the sentencing judge has awarded a defendant prior prison credit,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. State
...effect result in one term of imprisonment represented by the longest of the concurrent sentences imposed.”); Hardenbrook v. State, 953 So.2d 717, 717-18 (Fla.App.2007) (pretrial credits are applied multiple times only when the sentences are State v. Tauiliili, 96 Hawai'i 195, 29 P.3d 914, 9......
-
Santana v. Henry
...according to the petition, simply "to be calculated by the Department of Corrections" as was the situation in Hardenbrook v. State, 953 So.2d 717, 719 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). 3. At the sentencing hearing, testimony that he had spent six months at a state hospital in connection with an eva......
-
CREGG v. State of Fla.
...for each day he served attributable to the new charges. His situation can be compared to that of the defendant in Hardenbrook v. State, 953 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), a probationer from Bay County arrested in Baker County on new charges for which he was sentenced to jail in Baker County......
-
Cooper v. State, 1D06-5635.
...new offenses and other violations of the conditions of his probation. More on point is this court's decision in Hardenbrook v. State, 953 So.2d 717, 717-718 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). There, we held that credit for jail time spent in another county must be given only when the sentences run concur......