Keene v. State
| Decision Date | 12 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2254,86-2254 |
| Citation | 500 So.2d 592,11 Fla. L. Weekly 2655 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2655 Randy Earl KEENE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Randy Earl Keene, pro se.
Hardy O. Pickard, Asst. State Atty., Bartow, for appellee.
Randy Keene appeals the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief seeking correction of his sentences.
Keene was sentenced to concurrent terms of four years in each of seven different cases. He was awarded credit for time served on the basis of the presentence jail time actually served in each case. In his motion he claimed entitlement to credit on all of his sentences equivalent to the greatest amount of presentence time served for any one of them. 1 The court refused to grant the requested relief, citing Yohn v. State, 461 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The question presented by this appeal is whether Yohn was overruled sub silentio by the supreme court in Daniels v. State, 491 So.2d 543 (Fla.1986).
In sentencing the defendant in Yohn, the court applied credit time ranging from 43 to 128 days against each of the defendant's seven sentences. Yohn contended that the court should have awarded the maximum credit of 128 days against each sentence, since they were all to run concurrently. This court rejected the argument because the "defendant was charged at different times with a series of offenses for which she was incarcerated." 461 So.2d at 265.
In Daniels the defendant was arrested on July 10, 1983, and held in jail on charges of kidnapping, burglary, and attempted sexual battery. Because he was on probation for trespassing at the time of his arrest, a warrant was issued on July 25, 1983, for violation of probation. He was eventually convicted on the three felony charges, and his probation was revoked. At sentencing, the court imposed one year's imprisonment for trespassing with credit for time served. The court then imposed sentences of twenty-two years for kidnapping, five years for burglary, and five years for attempted sexual battery, each to be served concurrently with the others and with the trespassing sentence. However, the court did not credit any time served toward the sentences for the three felony offenses. The district court of appeal reversed, holding that because the sentences were concurrent the trial court had erred in failing to credit the time served toward all of the defendant's sentences. The supreme court approved the district court's opinion, holding that when "a defendant receives presentence jail-time credit on a sentence that is to run concurrently with other sentences, those sentences must also reflect the credit for time served." 491 So.2d at 545. The court made no reference to the Yohn decision.
When applied to the instant case, the language of Daniels is susceptible of the interpretation that the maximum amount of credit time for any one sentence must be applied against all of the concurrent sentences. However, in Daniels, the defendant simply received credit on each sentence equivalent to the amount of presentence time actually spent in jail as a result of that particular offense. Since he spent the same presentence time in jail for all three felonies, he received credit for the period of time from July 10, 1983, to sentencing against the sentences for each of them. With respect to his sentence for trespassing, Daniels received credit for any time he spent in jail prior to being put on probation plus the time he spent in jail from July 25, 1983, to sentencing. The opinion does not state whether the credit on the trespassing charge exceeded that on the three felonies or whether the felony credits were greater than the credit against the trespass. However, there is no indication that the greater credit was applied to all of the crimes. To put it another way, it does not appear that Daniels received credit against all sentences for the maximum amount of presentence time spent in jail for any one crime.
Our sister court made this point in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tripp, 90-02699
...consecutive sentences of imprisonment. Sec. 921.161, Fla.Stat. (1987); Daniels v. State, 491 So.2d 543 (Fla.1986); Keene v. State, 500 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Yohn v. State, 461 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2d 1984); Martin v. State, 452 So.2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Miller v. State, 297 So.2d 36 ......
-
Davenport v. State, 95-1098
...in that the defendant in Daniels "was arrested at the same time for a number of different charges." See also Keene v. State, 500 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In Daniels, supra, the court construed section 921.161(1) to mean where the defendant is serving time as to multiple charges, he mus......
-
Bryant v. State, 2D00-2151.
...some circumstances, a defendant may be entitled to presentence credit extending back to the filing of a detainer."); Keene v. State, 500 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (holding defendant is entitled to credit against each sentence for the time actually spent in jail on the charge which led to......
-
Steadman v. State
...of the consecutive sentences." Canete v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 967 So.2d 412, 415-16 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); see also Keene v. State, 500 So.2d 592, 594 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) ("In the case of consecutive sentences, a defendant is only entitled to credit against one of the sentences...."); Bar......