Opinion
Case No. 2D20-2996
04-30-2021
David S. HASTINGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
David S. Hastings, pro se.
David S. Hastings, pro se.
David S. Hastings appeals the order summarily denying his motion for jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In his April 3, 2018, motion, Hastings alleged that he was arrested in California, and he sought credit for time spent in jail there from January 16 to January 23, 2014, and from March 20 to April 7, 2014. He also sought credit for the time it took to extradite him to Lee County from April 7 to April 20, 2014. In addition, Hastings alleged that he was arrested in Idaho in May 2017, and he sought credit for time spent in jail there from May 2 to May 18, 2017, and for the time it took to extradite him to Lee County from May 18 to May 24, 2017.
The postconviction court denied Hastings' motion, finding that a defendant is not entitled to credit for time spent in custody in another state. See Perkowski v. State, 920 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). But Perkowski sought credit for time spent in custody in Pennsylvania after he was first sentenced on his Florida offenses. Id. at 837. In rejecting Perkowski's argument, the Fourth District stated:
Our supreme court has held that the term "county jail" in the statute is applicable only to Florida jails and was not intended by the legislature to apply to various places of incarceration in other jurisdictions. Kronz v. State, 462 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 1985). When a prisoner is incarcerated in another state on charges unrelated to a Florida charge, that prisoner is not entitled to credit for time served in the other state. See Hopping v. State, 650 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
It appears from the allegations of Hastings' motion that he was incarcerated in California and Idaho on his Florida charges. While " rule 3.801 can be used only to seek jail credit for time spent in Florida jails before sentencing," Gisi v. State, 135 So. 3d 493, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), a claim of entitlement to jail credit for time spent incarcerated in another state is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion, see Patterson v. State, 141 So. 3d 707, 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citing Gisi, 135 So. 3d at 495-96 ). This court's records show that the mandate affirming Hastings' appeal of his 2017 sentence issued on July 21, 2020. Thus, Hastings is within the two-year time limit of rule 3.850(b) to seek credit for any time he spent in out-of-state custody on the charge in this case. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to treat Hastings' motion as if it had been filed under rule 3.850. See id. at 709 (citing Gill v. State, 829 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla 2d DCA 2002) ).
Reversed and remanded.
SLEET and STARGEL, JJ., Concur.