Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

477 So. 2d 1

477 So.2d 1

10 Fla.L.Weekly 1443

Daniels v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1985-06-12

Relies on 452 So. 2d 938 - Martin v. State · 459 So. 2d 460 - Shepard v. State · Blackwell v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-06-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2001

5 state decisions

30198519902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Melvin Eugene Daniels was convicted and sentenced for several criminal offenses. He raises a number of points on appeal which we have duly considered. With the exception of his sentencing, we find that none of Daniels’ grievances are sufficient to merit reversal.

¶2At the time of his arrest on the instant charges, Daniels was on probation for burglary of a structure in Case No. 82-11172. Upon being found guilty in the instant case, the trial court revoked Daniels’ probation in Case No. 82-11172 and sentenced him to serve one year on that account. However, as to that one year sentence, the trial court gave Daniels credit for the time he had already served on that particular charge, plus credit for the time he had served in jail awaiting trial in the instant case. The trial court sentenced Daniels to serve twenty-two years for the convictions in the instant case which sentence was to be concurrent with the one year sentence in Case No. 82-11172. However (and this is the sentencing error), the trial court did not give or apply the above-mentioned credit for time already served to the twenty-two year sentence in the instant case. We hold that it was error not to do so because the sentences were concurrent. Kinney v. State, 458 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Martin v. State, 452 So.2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); and Blackwell v. State, 449 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Contra Shepard v. State, 459 So.2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

¶3We reverse and remand for resentencing in accordance herewith. It is not necessary for Daniels to be present.

¶4Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

HURLEY, WALDEN and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
/477/so2d/1 · .json · Public domain