Branch v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Branch v. State

495 So. 2d 869, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2174, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10149

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 8, 1986

DocketNo. 85-2970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 495 So. 2d 869 (Branch 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

Branch v. State, 495 So. 2d 869, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2174, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10149 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the judgments and sentences resulting from convictions of three counts of grand theft of a motor vehicle and one count of arson.

Appellant has raised several points on appeal, but merit is found only in the allegation that the trial court incorrectly credited appellant’s county jail time on his four concurrent sentences. See § 921.161, Fla. Stat. (1985). A review of the sentencing documents indicates that appellant received sixty-eight days credit for time served on two of the grand theft charges but received only sixty-six days credit for time served on the remaining grand theft charge and the arson charge. Credit for time served should apply equally to all concurrent sentences. Abbott v. State, 478 So.2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Wooley v. State, 459 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Martin v. State, 452 So.2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions but remand with directions that the proper credit for jail time be applied to all of appellant’s sentences.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the judgments and sentences resulting from convictions of three counts of grand theft of a motor vehicle and one count of arson.

Appellant has raised several points on appeal, but merit is found only in the allegation that the trial court incorrectly credited appellant’s county jail time on his four concurrent sentences. See § 921.161, Fla. Stat. (1985). A review of the sentencing documents indicates that appellant received sixty-eight days credit for time served on two of the grand theft charges but received only sixty-six days credit for time served on the remaining grand theft charge and the arson charge. Credit for time served should apply equally to all concurrent sentences. Abbott v. State, 478 So.2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Wooley v. State, 459 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Martin v. State, 452 So.2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions but remand with directions that the proper credit for jail time be applied to all of appellant’s sentences.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

495 So. 2d 869, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2174, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/branch-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack