Voulo v. Wainwright, 44619
| Decision Date | 13 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 44619,44619 |
| Citation | 290 So.2d 58 |
| Parties | Anthony W. VOULO, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Florida Division of Corrections, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Anthony W. Voulo, in pro per.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Enoch J. Whitney, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioning prisoner by mandamus seeks recalculation of his release date. We issued our alternative writ of mandamus, and a response and supporting brief have now been filed.
Petitioner was sentenced to three concurrent terms of imprisonment, each of six months to five years, on Sept. 5, 1969. He was paroled, effective Oct. 19, 1971, and was arrested on Feb. 6, 1973, charged with attempted breaking and entering of a building other than a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He was sentenced on May 14, 1973, to six months imprisonment on this charge, with credit for the 108 days already served in the county jail prior to sentencing, the sentence 'to run concurrent with any time given out of a Parole violation.'
A parole revocation hearing was held, and parole was revoked on Sept. 17, 1973, effective June 7, 1973. Petitioner was in the county jail from the date of his arrest on Feb. 6 until June 7. He now seeks credit upon his original concurrent sentences for this time. He is entitled to it and we so hold.
The instant case is similar in many respects to that of Brumit v. Wainwright, 290 So.2d 39, on rehearing (Fla.1973), and many of respondent's contentions have been determined in that case adversely to respondent. Unlike the situation presented in Brumit, however, the instant case did not involve a parole revocation to take effect In futuro; in point of fact, the effective date specified in the instant parole revocation order is more than three months Prior to the date of the order itself. The question presented is thus whether the petitioner is entitled to credit for the time spent in county jail from the date of his arrest on Feb. 6, 1973, to June 7, 1973, the date upon which the parole revocation is stated to be effective.
As was stated in both Law v. Wainwright, 264 So.2d 3 (Fla.1972), and Adams v. Wainwright, 275 So.2d 235 (Fla.1973), a person cannot be on parole and at the same time be in jail. Admittedly, a person on parole is not completely at liberty, albeit he does have substantially more freedom than when he is incarcerated. The fact that petitioner was in the county jail, rather than the state penitentiary, is immaterial, as 'all jails look the same from the inside.' As we indicated in Brumit, Law and Adams, 'everybody's got to be some place,' and you cannot be both free on parole and incarcerated at the same time. To so hold would be in clear violation of the underlying rationale of the three cases cited above.
As we indicated in Brumit, the incarceration of the petitioner terminates the interruption of his sentence represented by the parole which he was serving. Although the effort of the Parole Board to give the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Wainwright
...charge once his probation or parole is revoked and credit for time served on the charge which prompted the revocation. Voulo v. Wainwright, 290 So.2d 58 (Fla.1974); Gordon v. State, 379 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). See Bruner v. State, 398 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Although the att......
-
Stevenson v. State
...that the appellant should receive credit for the time he served between the filing of the detainer and the hearing. Cf. Voulo v. Wainwright, 290 So.2d 58 (Fla.1974). However, as he has not raised the issue, we do not consider Finally, this case has revealed negligence on the part of the aut......
-
Deaver v. State, 75--248
...89 days spent in jail after his most recent arrest, even though during that time he was held to answer for other charges; Voulo v. Wainwright, Fla.1974, 290 So.2d 58; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1st, 1974, 297 So.2d 36; Lawrence v. State, Fla.App.4th, 1975, 306 So.2d 561, but failed to give hi......
-
Kendrigan v. State, 4D06-3131.
...Pauldo v. State, 390 So.2d 125, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Gordon v. State, 379 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). See also Voulo v. Wainwright, 290 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1974) (explaining that a defendant cannot be on parole and in jail at the same time). If this is the case, appellant should receive ......