Vickers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vickers v. State

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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 1995

DocketNo. 95-01557

StatusPublished

This text of 655 So. 2d 1321 (Vickers 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

655 So. 2d 1321, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6400, 1995 WL 353616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vickers-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack