Cosgrave v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cosgrave v. State

656 So. 2d 281, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6790, 1995 WL 370797

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 1995

DocketNo. 95-365

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 656 So. 2d 281 (Cosgrave 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

Cosgrave v. State, 656 So. 2d 281, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6790, 1995 WL 370797 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the denial of his motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. This is yet another case involving the lack of detail on the form for sentencing found in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(d). For persons whose crimes were committed before October 1,1989, and who were given a split sentence, there can be an entitlement to gain time credit previously earned upon re-sentencing after violation of the probationary portion of the split sentence. Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941, 942 n. 2 (Fla.1993); State v. Green, 547 So.2d 925 (Fla.1989); Bacon v. State, 647 So.2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Green v. State, 636 So.2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Although we have not been provided with a copy of the pertinent page of appellant’s sentence, it is undisputed that the document did not specifically authorize either credit for gain time or credit for time served. This omission can be raised by a Rule 3.800 motion; upon remand, appellant is entitled to a specification, on the sentencing document, that gain time to which he is entitled be credited to his new sentence.

REVERSED and REMANDED to correct sentence.

DAUKSCH, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the denial of his motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. This is yet another case involving the lack of detail on the form for sentencing found in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(d). For persons whose crimes were committed before October 1,1989, and who were given a split sentence, there can be an entitlement to gain time credit previously earned upon re-sentencing after violation of the probationary portion of the split sentence. Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941, 942 n. 2 (Fla.1993); State v. Green, 547 So.2d 925 (Fla.1989); Bacon v. State, 647 So.2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Green v. State, 636 So.2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Although we have not been provided with a copy of the pertinent page of appellant’s sentence, it is undisputed that the document did not specifically authorize either credit for gain time or credit for time served. This omission can be raised by a Rule 3.800 motion; upon remand, appellant is entitled to a specification, on the sentencing document, that gain time to which he is entitled be credited to his new sentence.

REVERSED and REMANDED to correct sentence.

DAUKSCH, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

656 So. 2d 281, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6790, 1995 WL 370797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosgrave-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack