Vickers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vickers v. State

655 So. 2d 1321, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6400, 1995 WL 353616

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Vickers v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 630 So. 2d 1229 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 14, 1995·No. No. 95-01557·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John A. Vickers appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse for two reasons. First, the order relies on certain calculations of credit for time served that the trial court prepared on February 27, 1995, in response to an earlier motion filed by Mr. Vickers. Those calculations are apparently in the trial record, but were not attached to the order or otherwise transmitted to this court as required by the 1992 amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g). Second, the motion and order indicate that the trial court eliminated some of Mr. Vick-ers’ credit for time served when recalculating the credit in February. If so, the trial court has improperly increased the prisoner’s sentence in response to a motion to correct sentence. See Gilmore v. State, 523 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

John A. Vickers appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse for two reasons. First, the order relies on certain calculations of credit for time served that the trial court prepared on February 27, 1995, in response to an earlier motion filed by Mr. Vickers. Those calculations are apparently in the trial record, but were not attached to the order or otherwise transmitted to this court as required by the 1992 amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g). Second, the motion and order indicate that the trial court eliminated some of Mr. Vick-ers’ credit for time served when recalculating the credit in February. If so, the trial court has improperly increased the prisoner’s sentence in response to a motion to correct sentence. See Gilmore v. State, 523 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Vickers v. State, 655 So. 2d 1321, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6400, 1995 WL 353616 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

655 So. 2d 1321 (Vickers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related