Patrick Michael Craig v. State of Florida
This text of Patrick Michael Craig v. State of Florida (Patrick Michael Craig v. State of Florida) 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.
Opinion
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 6D2025-0699 Lower Tribunal Nos. 2024-CF-000258 and 2024-CF-000345 _____________________________
PATRICK MICHAEL CRAIG,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardee County. Brandon J. Rafool, Judge.
June 5, 2026
KAMOUTSAS, J.
Patrick Michael Craig appeals his judgment and sentences following an
order of probation that imposed a sentence of sixty months to be served concurrently
for two third-degree felony (F3) 1 charges in two separate cases.
1 Statutory maximum for a third-degree felony is five years. See § 775.082(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (2024). At sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced that credit for time served for
the associated misdemeanor charges would be awarded in both cases. The clerk’s
notes and the trial court’s signature page in both cases reflected that Craig was to
receive credit for time served. However, the written sentencing order and the order
of probation did not reflect that Craig was awarded credit for time served for his
felony charges. Craig moved the trial court to correct his sentences pending appeal,
but since the trial court did not rule within sixty days, the motion was deemed denied.
See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B).
On appeal, Craig argues that the omission of credit for time served in the
written order of probation and sentences resulted in an illegal sentence that—when
combined with the 60 months of probation—exceeded the statutory five-year
maximum. The State concedes that Craig’s sentences must be corrected on the basis
that the written sentences and the order of probation did not conform with the trial
court’s oral pronouncement.
Under either rationale, a correction is required. See Campbell v. State, 380 So.
3d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024) (citing Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268
(Fla. 2003) (“[W]hen conflict arises between the written sentence and the oral
pronouncement, the oral pronouncement prevails.”)); Grissinger v. State, 905 So. 2d
982, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that trial court must award credit for time
served in jail awaiting trial against probation term so that combined time does not
2 exceed statutory maximum) (citing Baldwin v. State, 558 So. 2d 173, 174 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1990)); see generally State v. Summers, 642 So. 2d 742, 744 (Fla. 1994)
(discussing consideration of time served when imposing probation to ensure
statutory maximum is not exceeded). Accordingly, the trial court’s written judgment
and sentences and the order of probation are reversed and remanded to conform with
the oral pronouncement to reflect credit for time served.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
BROWNLEE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Maria Clarke, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Patrick Michael Craig v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-michael-craig-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2026.