Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

941 So. 2d 529

Docket No. 4D06-3131.

Kendrigan v. State

Martin KENDRIGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 8, 2006.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2006-11-08

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2018

8 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Appellant is entitled to credit for time served in jail from the date of his arrest for the new offenses if the new offenses constituted the basis for the revocation of probation in the instant cases.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Bell v. State, 259 So. 3d 327 - Colton v. State

Relies on 290 So. 2d 58 - Voulo v. Wainwright · 543 So. 2d 437 - Hammer v. State · Joyner v. Karsner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-11-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Martin Kendrigan, Miami, pro se.

¶2Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We reverse the trial court's order denying appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion, which sought additional jail credit. Appellant is entitled to credit for time served in jail from the date of his arrest for the new offenses if the new offenses constituted the basis for the revocation of probation in the instant cases. Louis v. State,797 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Thompson v. Wainwright,447 So.2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Pauldo v. State,390 So.2d 125, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Gordon v. State,379 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). See also Voulo v. Wainwright,290 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1974) (explaining that a defendant cannot be on parole and in jail at the same time). If this is the case, appellant should receive credit from the date of his arrest for the new offenses through the date of sentencing following revocation of probation in these cases.

¶5On remand, if the new offenses were not the basis for revocation, the trial court must attach record evidence showing that appellant was not in jail on both the new charges and the violation charges at the same time. See Diggs v. State,727 So.2d 346, 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Davis v. State,543 So.2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See also Lavrich v. State,633 So.2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

¶6WARNER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

/941/so2d/529 · .json · Public domain