Grant v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grant v. State

837 So. 2d 1075, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1134, 2003 WL 244802

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 5, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-4970

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 837 So. 2d 1075 (Grant 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

Grant v. State, 837 So. 2d 1075, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1134, 2003 WL 244802 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s 3.800(a) motion for additional county jail credit applied against his eight-year sentence in case no. 97-24413 CF10. The allegations of his motion are insufficient to show entitlement to additional credit. The Department of Corrections (“Department”) is responsible for computing credit for time spent in county jail after sentencing. See § 921.161(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). If the post-sentence credit is incorrect, appellant should pursue his administrative remedies. If appellant is not satisfied after exhausting his administrative remedies, then he can file a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court in the county in which he is incarcerated. See Jefferson v. State, 830 So.2d 195, 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Colson v. State, 830 So.2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Killings v. State, 567 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The county jail where appellant was incarcerated after sentencing was required, when delivering Grant to the Department, to certify in writing “[t]he date the sentence was imposed and the date the prisoner was delivered to the department.” See § 921.161(2)(a). Our affirmance in this case is without prejudice to pursue appropriate remedies.

AFFIRMED.

FARMER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s 3.800(a) motion for additional county jail credit applied against his eight-year sentence in case no. 97-24413 CF10. The allegations of his motion are insufficient to show entitlement to additional credit. The Department of Corrections (“Department”) is responsible for computing credit for time spent in county jail after sentencing. See § 921.161(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). If the post-sentence credit is incorrect, appellant should pursue his administrative remedies. If appellant is not satisfied after exhausting his administrative remedies, then he can file a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court in the county in which he is incarcerated. See Jefferson v. State, 830 So.2d 195, 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Colson v. State, 830 So.2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Killings v. State, 567 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The county jail where appellant was incarcerated after sentencing was required, when delivering Grant to the Department, to certify in writing “[t]he date the sentence was imposed and the date the prisoner was delivered to the department.” See § 921.161(2)(a). Our affirmance in this case is without prejudice to pursue appropriate remedies.

AFFIRMED.

FARMER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

837 So. 2d 1075, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1134, 2003 WL 244802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack