State v. Mancino, No. 90516

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; KOGAN, C.J., OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., and GRIMES
Citation714 So.2d 429
Docket NumberNo. 90516
Decision Date11 June 1998
Parties23 Fla. L. Weekly S301 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Joseph Sal MANCINO, Respondent.

Page 429

714 So.2d 429
23 Fla. L. Weekly S301
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Joseph Sal MANCINO, Respondent.
No. 90516.
Supreme Court of Florida.
June 11, 1998.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Criminal Law, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Petitioner.

Page 430

Joseph Sal Mancino, pro se, Sneads, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the decision in Mancino v. State, 693 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), which the district court certified to be in conflict with the opinions in Berry v. State, 684 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Sullivan v. State, 674 So.2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); and Chaney v. State, 678 So.2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we approve Mancino. We hold that a claim of credit for jail time served is cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion to the extent that court records reflect an undisputed entitlement to credit and a sentence that fails to grant such credit.

MATERIAL FACTS

Respondent Joseph Sal Mancino (Mancino) entered pleas of no contest and was sentenced in two cases that involved burglary, dealing in stolen property, armed burglary, possession of burglary tools, and grand theft. Mancino made a rule 3.800(a) motion requesting jail credit, alleging that court records reflected that he was entitled to credit for time spent in county jail but he had not received credit at sentencing. The trial court denied the motion on the ground it was not cognizable under rule 3.800. On appeal, the Second District reversed, holding that rule 3.800 "is a proper vehicle for raising a credit time issue where jail credit can be determined from the court records." Mancino, 693 So.2d at 73.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

We recognize that this issue has been a troubling one to both the trial courts and the district courts. In a thorough analysis, the First District has noted that until very recently there has been little doubt that rule 3.800 could be used to resolve jail credit issues:

It once was well-established that postconviction claims for additional presentencing jail or prison credit could be raised in motions filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a) if the claim could be resolved without an evidentiary hearing through a review of the trial court's records. See, e.g., Jones v. State, 635 So.2d 41, 42-43 (Fla. 1st DCA [1994] ); Carver v. State, 653 So.2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Stevens v. State, 651 So.2d 1298, 1299-1300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Rouse v. State, 643 So.2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Handford v. State, 637 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Thomas v. State, 634 So.2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Thomas v. State, 611 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). While recognizing, as Judge Altenbernd had pointed out in his en banc opinion in Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA) (en banc ), review denied, 613 So.2d 5 (Fla.1992), that "[r]ule 3.800(a) is reserved for a narrow class of cases in which the sentence imposed can be described as truly 'illegal' as a matter of law, for example, where the sentence imposed exceeds the statutory maximum sentence for the crime charged," Nowlin v. State, 639 So.2d 1050, 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Rouse v. State, 601 So.2d 281, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 604 So.2d 487 (Fla.1992), this court nevertheless took the position that claims for additional presentencing jail or prison credit were exempt from this analysis and specifically held that "a sentence which does not allow for proper credit is an illegal sentence" as defined by the rule. See Jones, 635 So.2d at 42; Rouse, 643 So.2d at 1160; Moorer v. State, 556 So.2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); see also Sanders v. State, 579 So.2d 326, 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (noting that "a claim by a defendant that he did not receive all of his jail time credit attacks the sentence as being illegal and ... can be raised at any time"); Martin v. State, 525 So.2d 901, 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (opinion on rehearing) (reading the Florida Supreme Court's opinion in Daniels[v. State, 491 So.2d 543 (Fla. 1986)] to mean that "a sentence is illegal if it fails to allow a defendant credit on all concurrent sentences for all of the time spent in the county jail before sentencing"). Until July 1995, this remained the state of the law on postconviction claims for additional presentencing jail or prison credit raised in 3.800(a) motions.

Page 431

Vanderblomen v. State, 709 So.2d 144, 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (footnote omitted). The issue has also been brought into focus by Judge Altenbernd at the Second District:

From reviewing many sentencing transcripts, it is clear to me that trial judges use several different procedures to determine jail credit at sentencing. Some court files contain a detailed log of jail credit and others have little or no information about time served in the local county jail. Time served in jails outside the county is rarely documented in the court file. At sentencing hearings, judges are often forced to make a quick "guesstimate" of jail credit with assistance from the defendant and counsel. The 150 days awarded in this case probably is such an approximation. When the trial court guesses low, invariably the defendant discovers this error while in prison and files a motion requesting relief.

At this time, there is no adequate statewide source of information to help the trial judge make this calculation, and there is no adequate review procedure for the prisoner. The issue is rarely preserved for review by direct appeal. The majority is correct that, at least in theory, this issue can be raised by the defendant's attorney prior to appeal in a motion pursuant to the new rule 3.800(b). Unless the public defenders who handle cases at trial significantly modify their procedures, however, they will not discover these errors within the rule's 30-day period. If rule 3.800(b) is the only method to correct these errors, then trial courts will soon see a flood of motions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate jail credit and to file a timely motion.

This court has consistently held that some jail credit issues may be addressed by a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Street v. State, 693 So.2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Swyck v. State, 693 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); review granted, No. 90,358, 699 So.2d 1376 (Fla. Sept.5, 1997); Thomas, 611 So.2d 600. I continue to believe there are some errors involving jail credit that result in illegal sentences...

To continue reading

Request your trial
286 practice notes
  • Esty v. Jones, Case No. 3:14cv357/LC/CJK
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • June 4, 2015
    ...credit for time served. In Florida, a sentence that fails to give credit for time served is an illegal sentence. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla. 1998) (stating that "a sentence that does not mandate credit for time served would be illegal since a trial court has no discretion......
  • Maddox v. State, No. SC92805
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 11, 2000
    ...served is a fundamental sentencing error that should be corrected during the window period even though unpreserved. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 432 Similarly, we conclude that in these cases the appellate courts should correct errors such as those that occurred in Peavy v. State, 7......
  • Chavis v. Jones, Case No. 3:13cv612/LC/CJK
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • January 12, 2015
    ...(N.D. Fla. July 3, 2014): In Florida, a sentence which incorrectly calculated jail credit is an illegal sentence. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla. 1998) (stating that "a sentence that does not mandate credit for time served would be illegal since a trial court has no discretio......
  • Petscher v. State, No. 5D05-3319.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 23, 2006
    ...requirement was inserted into the rule in 2000 by the Florida Supreme Court to conform the rule with the decision in State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998) ("We hold credit time issues are cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records dem......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
286 cases
  • Esty v. Jones, Case No. 3:14cv357/LC/CJK
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • June 4, 2015
    ...credit for time served. In Florida, a sentence that fails to give credit for time served is an illegal sentence. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla. 1998) (stating that "a sentence that does not mandate credit for time served would be illegal since a trial court has no discretion......
  • Maddox v. State, No. SC92805
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 11, 2000
    ...served is a fundamental sentencing error that should be corrected during the window period even though unpreserved. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 432 Similarly, we conclude that in these cases the appellate courts should correct errors such as those that occurred in Peavy v. State, 7......
  • Chavis v. Jones, Case No. 3:13cv612/LC/CJK
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • January 12, 2015
    ...(N.D. Fla. July 3, 2014): In Florida, a sentence which incorrectly calculated jail credit is an illegal sentence. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla. 1998) (stating that "a sentence that does not mandate credit for time served would be illegal since a trial court has no discretio......
  • Petscher v. State, No. 5D05-3319.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 23, 2006
    ...requirement was inserted into the rule in 2000 by the Florida Supreme Court to conform the rule with the decision in State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998) ("We hold credit time issues are cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records dem......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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