CHRISTOPHER WALK v. STATE OF FLORIDA ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •        DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FOURTH DISTRICT
    CHRISTOPHER WALK,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    No. 4D21-557
    [August 10, 2022]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
    Beach County; Daliah H. Weiss, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2015-CF-
    009085-AXXX-MB.
    Joshua LeRoy of LeRoy Law, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and MaryEllen M.
    Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
    WARNER, J.
    We reverse the denial of credit for probation time served. When the
    trial court resentenced appellant for three felonies to correct an illegal
    sentence, it failed to give appellant credit against the probation portion of
    the new sentences based upon the probation appellant had already served.
    Appellant was sentenced for three counts of third-degree felonies. After
    a series of hearings and mitigation of the original sentence, the court
    sentenced appellant to eighteen months in prison followed by ten years of
    probation. The court pronounced a general sentence for all three felonies.
    The court did not announce that the sentences would be served
    concurrently. Accordingly, the written sentence provided that both the
    prison portion and the probation portion would be served concurrently.
    See § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (“A defendant convicted of two or more
    offenses charged in the same indictment, information, or affidavit or in
    consolidated indictments, informations, or affidavits shall serve the
    sentences of imprisonment concurrently unless the court directs that two
    or more of the sentences be served consecutively.”).
    After appellant served the prison portion of the sentence, he filed a
    motion to correct an illegal sentence. He contended that the ten-year
    probationary sentence to be served concurrently was an illegal sentence,
    because it exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for each offense.
    The trial court resentenced appellant on Count I to eighteen months in
    prison, with credit for time served on Count II to five years of probation,
    and on Count III to five years of probation, all to be served consecutively.1
    Appellant asked for thirty months credit against the probation sentence
    on Counts II and III for the time he had already served on probation as to
    both counts. In a later order, the court ultimately granted credit against
    Count II but not Count III. Appellant appeals his sentence, maintaining
    that he is also entitled to credit against the probationary term imposed in
    Count III.
    Appellant is correct that he was entitled to credit against each count
    for the time he served on probation concurrently on each offense.
    When a criminal defendant is sentenced after being convicted
    of a crime and serves some portion of that sentence, he or she
    is entitled to receive credit for the actual service of that
    sentence, or any portion thereof, in a resentencing for the
    same crime.     Likewise, if multiple convictions result in
    concurrent sentences, credit must be awarded for time served
    on each sentence in any resentencing for the multiple
    convictions. The word “concurrently” simply means “at the
    same time,” and by imposing sentences to be served
    concurrently, a trial court is permitting a defendant to serve
    multiple sentences at the same time.
    State v. Rabedeau, 
    2 So. 3d 191
    , 193 (Fla. 2009). Because appellant was
    serving concurrent sentences during the probationary period prior to his
    resentencing, he was entitled to credit against each count for the probation
    he served. We thus reverse for the trial court to provide credit for probation
    time served on each count.
    Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this
    opinion.
    GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
    *         *         *
    1 While we have concerns about this resentencing process, neither party raises
    this as an issue on appeal.
    2
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-0557

Filed Date: 8/10/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/10/2022