Robinson v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Robinson v. Singletary

695 So. 2d 795, 1997 WL 340336

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 28, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3940

StatusPublished

This text of 695 So. 2d 795 (Robinson v. Singletary) 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

Robinson v. Singletary, 695 So. 2d 795, 1997 WL 340336 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order of the trial court by which his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. He alleged in his petition that provisional credits that he had been awarded while serving the incarcerative portion of his split sentence had vested such that he was entitled to credit against his present sentence which was imposed upon the violation of his probation. When the petition was denied, the trial court did not have the benefit of the recent decision in Lynce v. Mathis, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997). We accordingly reverse the order under review and remand this case to the trial court for reconsideration of the petition in light of Lynce. See Gridland v. Singletary, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1109, 695 So.2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

ALLEN, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order of the trial court by which his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. He alleged in his petition that provisional credits that he had been awarded while serving the incarcerative portion of his split sentence had vested such that he was entitled to credit against his present sentence which was imposed upon the violation of his probation. When the petition was denied, the trial court did not have the benefit of the recent decision in Lynce v. Mathis, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997). We accordingly reverse the order under review and remand this case to the trial court for reconsideration of the petition in light of Lynce. See Gridland v. Singletary, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1109, 695 So.2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

ALLEN, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 So. 2d 795, 1997 WL 340336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-singletary-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack