Calloway v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Calloway v. State

650 So. 2d 156, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 870, 1995 WL 44533

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 1995

DocketNo. 94-702

StatusPublished

This text of 650 So. 2d 156 (Calloway 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

Calloway v. State, 650 So. 2d 156, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 870, 1995 WL 44533 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant challenges only the sentences imposed following revocation of probationary terms which had been parts of five split sentences. We are unable to ascertain how the trial court arrived at the figure of 292 days awarded as credit for time served. Appellant argues that the trial court failed to give him credit for time served in state prison on the incar-cerative portions of the split sentences originally imposed. As it appears that this argument may have some merit, we reverse the [157]*157sentences and remand to the trial court with directions that it award appellant credit for all time actually served in either jail or prison. See generally Lavrich v. State, 633 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Roesch v. State, 446 So.2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hernandez v. State, 396 So.2d 809 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Appellant’s remaining point on appeal merits neither discussion nor reversal.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

MINER, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant challenges only the sentences imposed following revocation of probationary terms which had been parts of five split sentences. We are unable to ascertain how the trial court arrived at the figure of 292 days awarded as credit for time served. Appellant argues that the trial court failed to give him credit for time served in state prison on the incar-cerative portions of the split sentences originally imposed. As it appears that this argument may have some merit, we reverse the [157]*157sentences and remand to the trial court with directions that it award appellant credit for all time actually served in either jail or prison. See generally Lavrich v. State, 633 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Roesch v. State, 446 So.2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hernandez v. State, 396 So.2d 809 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Appellant’s remaining point on appeal merits neither discussion nor reversal.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

MINER, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 So. 2d 156, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 870, 1995 WL 44533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calloway-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack