Russell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Russell v. State

487 So. 2d 366, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 913, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7368

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 16, 1986

Docket86-588

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 487 So. 2d 366 (Russell 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

Russell v. State, 487 So. 2d 366, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 913, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7368 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, Judge.

John Russell appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief.

[367]*367Russell is presently serving a sentence imposed after he was found guilty of probation violations. He maintains that the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider the probation violations because they were alleged to have occurred while Russell was still under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, prior to the inception of the probationary term. We believe that the decision of the supreme court in Stafford v. State, 455 So.2d 385 (Fla.1984), supports the conclusion that the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the violations.

Russell also alleges that the public defender who represented him at the revocation hearing was ineffective. At best, Russell has shown that counsel had only a short time to prepare for the hearing. This alone does not demonstrate that his subsequent representation was inadequate. See, e.g., Byrd v. State, 243 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

Lastly, Russell claims that, in awarding credit for time served, the trial court shortchanged him nineteen days. The trial court failed to attach sufficient portions of the record to demonstrate that Russell is not entitled to this additional credit. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court with directions either to award Russell the extra nineteen days, or to support its denial with sufficient record excerpts. The order denying postconviction relief is in all other respects affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

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

DANAHY, Judge.

John Russell appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief.

[367]*367Russell is presently serving a sentence imposed after he was found guilty of probation violations. He maintains that the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider the probation violations because they were alleged to have occurred while Russell was still under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, prior to the inception of the probationary term. We believe that the decision of the supreme court in Stafford v. State, 455 So.2d 385 (Fla.1984), supports the conclusion that the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the violations.

Russell also alleges that the public defender who represented him at the revocation hearing was ineffective. At best, Russell has shown that counsel had only a short time to prepare for the hearing. This alone does not demonstrate that his subsequent representation was inadequate. See, e.g., Byrd v. State, 243 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

Lastly, Russell claims that, in awarding credit for time served, the trial court shortchanged him nineteen days. The trial court failed to attach sufficient portions of the record to demonstrate that Russell is not entitled to this additional credit. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court with directions either to award Russell the extra nineteen days, or to support its denial with sufficient record excerpts. The order denying postconviction relief is in all other respects affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 So. 2d 366, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 913, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack