Kimble v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kimble v. State

110 So. 3d 469, 2013 WL 541133, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2296

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 2013

DocketNo. 1D10-5127

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 So. 3d 469 (Kimble 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

Kimble v. State, 110 So. 3d 469, 2013 WL 541133, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2296 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct appeal the appellant challenges the sentences imposed after the trial court granted a rule 3.800(b) motion to correct scoresheet error and resen-tenced him. We deny the appellant’s double jeopardy claim and, with the exception discussed below, we affirm the judgment and sentences without further discussion. However, because the appellant’s sentences were originally all running concurrently to each other, the appellant was entitled to credit on each count for the time he spent in jail or prison after the original sentence was imposed but before he was resentenced to consecutive terms. See Gisi v. State, 4 So.3d 613 (Fla.2009) (holding that a defendant on resentencing is entitled to credit on each newly imposed consecutive sentence for prison time already served on the original concurrent sentences); State v. Rabedeau, 2 So.3d 191 (Fla.2009) (same). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to award credit on each count for time spent in jail or prison from the date of the appellant’s original sentence to the date he was resentenced.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part for further proceedings.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this direct appeal the appellant challenges the sentences imposed after the trial court granted a rule 3.800(b) motion to correct scoresheet error and resen-tenced him. We deny the appellant’s double jeopardy claim and, with the exception discussed below, we affirm the judgment and sentences without further discussion. However, because the appellant’s sentences were originally all running concurrently to each other, the appellant was entitled to credit on each count for the time he spent in jail or prison after the original sentence was imposed but before he was resentenced to consecutive terms. See Gisi v. State, 4 So.3d 613 (Fla.2009) (holding that a defendant on resentencing is entitled to credit on each newly imposed consecutive sentence for prison time already served on the original concurrent sentences); State v. Rabedeau, 2 So.3d 191 (Fla.2009) (same). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to award credit on each count for time spent in jail or prison from the date of the appellant’s original sentence to the date he was resentenced.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part for further proceedings.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 3d 469, 2013 WL 541133, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimble-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack