Wade v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wade v. State

776 So. 2d 1082, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1074, 2001 WL 98671

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

DocketNo. 3D01-153

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 776 So. 2d 1082 (Wade 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

Wade v. State, 776 So. 2d 1082, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1074, 2001 WL 98671 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court properly denied the appellant credit for additional time served. As part of his plea bargain, defendant-appellant Wade waived all credit for time previously served in this case, except for eleven days. Such a waiver is permissible. See Cozza v. State, 756 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Wells v. State, 751 So.2d 703, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Defendant was originally sentenced to three hundred sixty-six days in prison followed by one year of probation. He violated probation and entered a plea bargain for another prison term. Defendant’s motion suggests that he may be arguing that his gain time from his earlier imprisonment in this case should not have been forfeited. He relies on State v. Hreen, 547 So.2d 925 (Fla.1989), but the gain time statute was subsequently modified and now provides for forfeiture of gain time upon recommitment. See § 944.28(1), Florida Statutes (1997); Dowdy v. Singletary, 704 So.2d 1052, 1053 (Fla.1998); Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941, 942 n. 2 (1993).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court properly denied the appellant credit for additional time served. As part of his plea bargain, defendant-appellant Wade waived all credit for time previously served in this case, except for eleven days. Such a waiver is permissible. See Cozza v. State, 756 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Wells v. State, 751 So.2d 703, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Defendant was originally sentenced to three hundred sixty-six days in prison followed by one year of probation. He violated probation and entered a plea bargain for another prison term. Defendant’s motion suggests that he may be arguing that his gain time from his earlier imprisonment in this case should not have been forfeited. He relies on State v. Hreen, 547 So.2d 925 (Fla.1989), but the gain time statute was subsequently modified and now provides for forfeiture of gain time upon recommitment. See § 944.28(1), Florida Statutes (1997); Dowdy v. Singletary, 704 So.2d 1052, 1053 (Fla.1998); Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941, 942 n. 2 (1993).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

776 So. 2d 1082, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1074, 2001 WL 98671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack