Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

779 So. 2d 417

Rowan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 22, 2000

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2000-09-22

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 2019

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“This appears to be a scrivener's error that combines jail and prison credit.... The trial court need not calculate prison credit so long as the trial court checks the standard box allowing all appropriate prior prison credit.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 268 So. 3d 275 - Crandall v. State, Crandall v. State

Relies on Anders v. California · 704 So. 2d 1052 - Dowdy v. Singletary

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-09-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Jeffrey Rowan appeals an order revoking his probation and imposing a sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment for a sexual battery with a deadly weapon that occurred in 1988. His counsel filed an An-ders 1 brief. Mr. Rowan filed his own brief arguing, in part, that the trial court failed to give him proper credit for time served and gain time. We affirm the order revoking his probation but reverse the sentence for a proper determination of jail credit.

¶2At the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally announced that Mr. Rowan was entitled to all jail .and prison credit appropriate for this sentence. The written sentence, however, reflects only jail credit of 774 days and no prison credit. This appears to be a scrivener’s error that combines jail and prison credit. Because Mr. Rowan’s original offense occurred in 1988, a time when neither the Department of Corrections nor the court could forfeit gain time, it appears that Mr. Rowan is entitled to significant prison credit in addition to any jail credit. See Dowdy v. Singletary, 704 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla.1998).

¶3Accordingly, we remand for a new determination of jail credit. The trial court need not calculate prison credit so long as the trial court checks the standard box allowing all appropriate prior prison credit.

¶4Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur.

¶5. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

/779/so2d/417 · .json · Public domain