Crum v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crum v. State

197 So. 3d 86, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10466, 2016 WL 3654763

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 8, 2016

Docket2D15-4625

StatusPublished

This text of 197 So. 3d 86 (Crum 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

Crum v. State, 197 So. 3d 86, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10466, 2016 WL 3654763 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jody Crum appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without prejudice to his right to file another motion pursuant to rule 3.850, raising the issues of (1) whether Crum’s probationary sentence in Polk County was tolled while he served his prison sentence on an unrelated case in Martin County where the Martin County sentence was expressly made concurrent “with any active sentence being served,” and (2) whether Crum is entitled to credit for time served on his Martin County prison sentence against his Polk County probationary sentence where the two sentences were unrelated in time, place, and forum. These arguments were not specifically raised in Crum’s original 3.850 motion, but because they relate to the trial court’s jurisdiction to revoke probation and because the postconviction court did not have an opportunity to address these specific arguments, 1 a new rule 3.850 motion raising these issues should not be deemed successive. See Sepulveda v. State, 909 So.2d 568, 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that a claim of a trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to sentence a defendant for violation of probation was a cognizable claim in a rule 3.850 motion); Ford v. State, 994 So.2d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that issue of whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation may be raised for the first time in a postconviction motion); see also Wright v. State, 47 So.3d 972, 973-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (rejecting State’s argument that probationary period was tolled while deten- *87 dant served time in prison on unrelated charge where prison term was made expressly concurrent to probationary term).

Affirmed without prejudice.

VILLANTI, C.J., and CASANUEVA and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

1

. Crum raised the general issue of a trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to revoke probation where a probationary term had already expired.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jody Crum appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without prejudice to his right to file another motion pursuant to rule 3.850, raising the issues of (1) whether Crum’s probationary sentence in Polk County was tolled while he served his prison sentence on an unrelated case in Martin County where the Martin County sentence was expressly made concurrent “with any active sentence being served,” and (2) whether Crum is entitled to credit for time served on his Martin County prison sentence against his Polk County probationary sentence where the two sentences were unrelated in time, place, and forum. These arguments were not specifically raised in Crum’s original 3.850 motion, but because they relate to the trial court’s jurisdiction to revoke probation and because the postconviction court did not have an opportunity to address these specific arguments, 1 a new rule 3.850 motion raising these issues should not be deemed successive. See Sepulveda v. State, 909 So.2d 568, 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that a claim of a trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to sentence a defendant for violation of probation was a cognizable claim in a rule 3.850 motion); Ford v. State, 994 So.2d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that issue of whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation may be raised for the first time in a postconviction motion); see also Wright v. State, 47 So.3d 972, 973-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (rejecting State’s argument that probationary period was tolled while deten- *87 dant served time in prison on unrelated charge where prison term was made expressly concurrent to probationary term).

Affirmed without prejudice.

VILLANTI, C.J., and CASANUEVA and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

1

. Crum raised the general issue of a trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to revoke probation where a probationary term had already expired.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 3d 86, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10466, 2016 WL 3654763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crum-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack