Hill v. State

719 So. 2d 1016, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13886, 1998 WL 765395
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hill v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 711 So. 2d 1221
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 4, 1998·No. No. 98-2006·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order on appellant’s Rule 3.800(a) motion insofar as it awarded appellant credit for time served on Count I. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a). We reverse the trial court’s order insofar as it declined to award credit for time served on Count II. As to Count II, we remand for reconsideration in light of State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998), which held that a claim of credit for time served that can be resolved on the face of the record is cognizable under Rule 3.800(a), even where the failure to award credit would not cause the sentence to exceed the statutory maximum.

STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

Hill v. State, 719 So. 2d 1016, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13886, 1998 WL 765395 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

719 So. 2d 1016 (Hill v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Mancino
714 So. 2d 429 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)