Duffy v. State

117 So. 3d 474, 2013 WL 3724775, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11300
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 17, 2013
DocketNo. 2D12-5143
StatusPublished

This text of 117 So. 3d 474 (Duffy 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
Duffy v. State, 117 So. 3d 474, 2013 WL 3724775, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11300 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

DAVIS, Chief Judge.

Bernard Daniel Duffy appeals the post-conviction court’s order summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) in which he sought additional jail credit on the sentence he received in circuit court case number 09-2896. We reverse.

In November 2009, the trial court placed Duffy on two years’ community control in case number 07-3184 followed by fifteen years’ probation in case number 08-6562 to [475]*475be served concurrently with the ten-year probationary term he received in case number 09-2896. On April 11, 2011, Duffy was arrested for violating probation in case numbers 07-3184 and 08-6562.1 However, an arrest warrant for case number 09-2896 was not issued until December 2011, and Duffy was apparently not formally arrested until January 4, 2012. As a result, when the trial court revoked Duffy’s probation and sentenced him in the three cases to concurrent terms of two years’ imprisonment on January 5, 2012, it gave him jail credit in case numbers 07-3184 and 08-6562 from April 11, 2011, but it gave him only three days’ jail credit in case number 09-2896. In his rule 3.800(a) motion, Duffy argued that because he violated probation in all three cases, he also was entitled to jail credit in case number 09-2896 from April 11, 2011, to January 5, 2012.

We ordered the State to respond to Duffy’s argument in light of Milligan v. State, 88 So.3d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), in which this court concluded that although Milligan was not arrested for violating probation in one of the two cases in which he was serving concurrent terms of probation, because the record demonstrated that he was in custody in both cases, he was entitled to jail credit in both cases. The State concedes that under Milligan, Duffy is entitled to jail credit in case number 09-2896 from April 11, 2011, through January 5, 2012.2 Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because it appears that Duffy’s release would be imminent if he were given the ádditional jail credit, the postconviction court should expedite the proceedings on remand and enter an order within fifteen days from the date of the issuance of the mandate in this proceeding.

Reversed and remanded.

KELLY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

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

Related

Martin v. State
243 So. 2d 189 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Gonzalez v. State
17 So. 3d 1277 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Stafford v. State
455 So. 2d 385 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)
Tinker v. State
870 So. 2d 79 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Seay v. State
928 So. 2d 479 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Milligan v. State
88 So. 3d 1031 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 So. 3d 474, 2013 WL 3724775, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duffy-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.