Brooks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brooks v. State

421 So. 2d 829, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28193

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 17, 1982

DocketNo. AM-462

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 421 So. 2d 829 (Brooks 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

Brooks v. State, 421 So. 2d 829, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28193 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Brooks appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, contending that his sentence should be corrected to include credit for time spent in county jail prior to sentencing. We disagree and affirm.

While serving a federal prison term, Brooks was removed to Escambia County to answer Florida charges. He was convicted and sentenced on the state charges and was transferred back to federal prison. Essentially, Brooks argues that Section 921.-161(1), Florida Statutes (1975)¹ required the trial judge to give him credit for the time he spent in the Escambia County jail awaiting sentence.

Section 921.161(1) insures that a prisoner will not lose credit for time he spent in jail before sentencing. However, it does not bestow duplicate jail time credit. See generally, Miller v. State, 297 So.2d 36, 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).

Here, Brooks was serving a federal sentence during his stay in county jail, and he does not assert that he will be denied jail time credit by federal authorities. Because Brooks apparently received his federal jail time credit, the trial judge below was not required to give him duplicate credit toward his Florida sentence. See Bruner v. State, 398 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Watson v. State, 340 So.2d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 955 (Fla.1977). See also, Wingfield v. Page, 422 P.2d 229 (Okl.Cr.App.1966); Southard v. State, 363 So.2d 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

Brooks additionally alleges that he lost eligibility for federal “gain time” during his Escambia County incarceration. However, we agree with the trial judge that Brooks has failed to demonstrate how this affects his state sentence. Certainly, loss of eligibility for federal gain time does not impact on Section 921.161(1).

Affirmed.

MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

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

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Brooks appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, contending that his sentence should be corrected to include credit for time spent in county jail prior to sentencing. We disagree and affirm.

While serving a federal prison term, Brooks was removed to Escambia County to answer Florida charges. He was convicted and sentenced on the state charges and was transferred back to federal prison. Essentially, Brooks argues that Section 921.-161(1), Florida Statutes (1975)¹ required the trial judge to give him credit for the time he spent in the Escambia County jail awaiting sentence.

Section 921.161(1) insures that a prisoner will not lose credit for time he spent in jail before sentencing. However, it does not bestow duplicate jail time credit. See generally, Miller v. State, 297 So.2d 36, 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).

Here, Brooks was serving a federal sentence during his stay in county jail, and he does not assert that he will be denied jail time credit by federal authorities. Because Brooks apparently received his federal jail time credit, the trial judge below was not required to give him duplicate credit toward his Florida sentence. See Bruner v. State, 398 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Watson v. State, 340 So.2d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 955 (Fla.1977). See also, Wingfield v. Page, 422 P.2d 229 (Okl.Cr.App.1966); Southard v. State, 363 So.2d 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

Brooks additionally alleges that he lost eligibility for federal “gain time” during his Escambia County incarceration. However, we agree with the trial judge that Brooks has failed to demonstrate how this affects his state sentence. Certainly, loss of eligibility for federal gain time does not impact on Section 921.161(1).

Affirmed.

MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

421 So. 2d 829, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack