Beckwith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Beckwith v. State

799 So. 2d 310, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13913, 2001 WL 1284253

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 5, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-2160

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 799 So. 2d 310 (Beckwith v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beckwith v. State, 799 So. 2d 310, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13913, 2001 WL 1284253 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Chief Judge.

Brian Beckwith appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Beckwith alleges that he is entitled to additional jail credit for time spent in the Pinellas County jail after sentencing. Specifically, Beckwith alleges that he was transported back to the Pinellas County jail from the Department of Corrections (hereinafter “the Department”) on two separate occa[311]*311sions while serving his prison sentence. The first occasion was for a postconviction hearing. The trial court correctly denied this claim finding that the Department is responsible for calculating jail time credit for that period. See Stuart v. State, 771 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). We therefore affirm as to that claim.

The second time, however, appears to have occurred when Beckwith’s original sentence was vacated and he was transported back to the trial court for resen-tencing. If, in fact, Beckwith spent time in the Pinellas County jail after his original sentence was vacated and before he was resentenced, the trial court is responsible for calculating jail time credit for that period. See Stuart, 771 So.2d at 1253. Because it appears from the limited record before this court that the trial court may have failed to award Beckwith credit for this period, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again denies this claim, the trial court must attach record documents showing either that Beckwith was awarded jail time credit for this period or that he was not incarcerated at any time between the date the original sentence was vacated and the date of resentencing.

As to Beckwith’s claim seeking additional jail credit for time served between sentencing and his commitment to the Department, we affirm without prejudice to Beckwith’s right to pursue his administrative remedies within the Department. See Stuart, 771 So.2d at 1254.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

GREEN and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BLUE, Chief Judge.

Brian Beckwith appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Beckwith alleges that he is entitled to additional jail credit for time spent in the Pinellas County jail after sentencing. Specifically, Beckwith alleges that he was transported back to the Pinellas County jail from the Department of Corrections (hereinafter “the Department”) on two separate occa[311]*311sions while serving his prison sentence. The first occasion was for a postconviction hearing. The trial court correctly denied this claim finding that the Department is responsible for calculating jail time credit for that period. See Stuart v. State, 771 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). We therefore affirm as to that claim.

The second time, however, appears to have occurred when Beckwith’s original sentence was vacated and he was transported back to the trial court for resen-tencing. If, in fact, Beckwith spent time in the Pinellas County jail after his original sentence was vacated and before he was resentenced, the trial court is responsible for calculating jail time credit for that period. See Stuart, 771 So.2d at 1253. Because it appears from the limited record before this court that the trial court may have failed to award Beckwith credit for this period, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again denies this claim, the trial court must attach record documents showing either that Beckwith was awarded jail time credit for this period or that he was not incarcerated at any time between the date the original sentence was vacated and the date of resentencing.

As to Beckwith’s claim seeking additional jail credit for time served between sentencing and his commitment to the Department, we affirm without prejudice to Beckwith’s right to pursue his administrative remedies within the Department. See Stuart, 771 So.2d at 1254.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

GREEN and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

799 So. 2d 310, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13913, 2001 WL 1284253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beckwith-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack