From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Downing v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 31, 2001
779 So. 2d 562 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Summary

finding that the trial court may delegate the administrative task of calculating prison credit to the Department of Corrections but that the trial court is responsible for ordering such credit (citing Thistle v. State, 769 So.2d 1149, 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000))

Summary of this case from Ingraham v. State

Opinion

No. 2D00-4126.

Opinion filed January 31, 2001.

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Highlands County; J. David Langford, Judge.

Reversed and Remanded with directions.


David Downing appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Downing's motion alleged that he originally received a sentence of incarceration, followed by probation. He subsequently admitted to violating his probation and was sentenced to forty-two months' incarceration. Downing claimed that when he was sentenced after the revocation of his probation, the trial court did not award state prison credit for time previously served.

The circuit court agreed that Downing should have received credit for any time actually served before he violated his probation. Nevertheless, the court denied the motion. It reasoned that since the probation revocation documents reflected that Downing was a split sentence violator, he should already be receiving the proper credit.

We note, however, that on the judgment and sentence attached to the circuit court's order the box concerning prison credit is left blank.See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.986(d). As the Fifth District held in Thistle v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D2586 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 3, 2000), "[a]lthough it is permissible for the trial court to delegate to [the Department of Corrections] the administrative task of calculating the amount of prison credit which is due, it is the trial court's responsibility to order that such credit be provided." Id. at D2586 (citing Wilson v. State, 603 So.2d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)). Here, the trial court did not complete its responsibility because it did not place a check in the appropriate box concerning prison credit. Therefore, we reverse the order denying Downing's motion for relief and remand for correction of the sentence to reflect that he is entitled to prison credit.

Fulmer, A.C.J., and Northcutt and Davis, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Downing v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 31, 2001
779 So. 2d 562 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

finding that the trial court may delegate the administrative task of calculating prison credit to the Department of Corrections but that the trial court is responsible for ordering such credit (citing Thistle v. State, 769 So.2d 1149, 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000))

Summary of this case from Ingraham v. State

finding that the trial court may delegate the administrative task of calculating prison credit to the Department of Corrections but that the trial court is responsible for ordering such credit (citing Thistle v. State, 769 So. 2d 1149, 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000))

Summary of this case from Ingraham v. State

In Downing, the award of prison credit could have been accomplished by placing a check in the appropriate box on the written sentence.

Summary of this case from Sutton v. State
Case details for

Downing v. State

Case Details

Full title:DAVID DOWNING, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jan 31, 2001

Citations

779 So. 2d 562 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

We find the claim raised by the appellant to be legally sufficient for a motion for post-conviction relief,…

Sutton v. State

" The trial court is incorrect. Although the trial court may delegate to the Department of Corrections the…