Bracey v. State

356 So. 2d 72
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 16, 1978
DocketNos. HH-448, HH-449
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 356 So. 2d 72 (Bracey 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
Bracey v. State, 356 So. 2d 72 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants entered pleas of guilty to offense of making or uttering a false prescription, contrary to Section 893.13(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). Appellants were adjudicated guilty of the offense. Imposition of sentence was withheld and appellants were placed on probation for a period of five years. As a condition of probation, Bracey was ordered to spend nine (9) months in county jail, whereas Cochran was ordered to spend eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days in county jail. Appellants urge the trial court erred by not allowing appellants credit for time spent in county jail prior to entry of the order of probation.

Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975), provides:

“A sentence of imprisonment shall not begin to run before the date it is imposed, but the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time he spent in the county jail before sentence. The credit must be for a specified period of time and shall be provided for in the sentence.”

Under Section 948.01(3), Florida Statutes (1975), the trial court is authorized to stay and withhold imposition of sentence, and place a defendant on probation. The court may, as a condition of probation, order that the defendant spend a specified period of time in jail. Section 948.03, Florida Statutes (1975). State v. Jones, 327 So.2d 18 (Fla.1976).

We do not believe Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes-(1975), is applicable in the present situation. The order of probation does not constitute an imposition of sentence necessitating applicability of Section 921.161(1).

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing to allow credit for time served against the jail term imposed as a condition of probation.

The judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERYIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Willis v. State
543 So. 2d 343 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Griner v. State
523 So. 2d 789 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Van Tassel v. Coffman
486 So. 2d 528 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Chapple v. State
478 So. 2d 103 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Boalt v. State
406 So. 2d 1248 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Flynn v. State
413 So. 2d 36 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Villery v. Florida Parole & Probation Com'n
396 So. 2d 1107 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1981)
Adams v. State
387 So. 2d 498 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Pensacola Beach Realty, Inc. v. Fla. Real Estate Comm.
356 So. 2d 72 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
356 So. 2d 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bracey-v-state-fladistctapp-1978.