Hampton v. State, 421 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Hampton v. State, 421 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Rivera v. State (fladistctapp, 1994-06-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Rivera v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hampton v. State, 421 So.2d 775 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (agreeing that the appellant was entitled to credit against his new sentences for time he spent in prison under the vacated sentences); Craig v. State, 608 So.2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (defendant was entitled to credit for time served on the original sentence which was vacated by the appellate court).
discussed Cited "see" Moore v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hampton v. State, 421 So.2d 775 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (though defendant is entitled to credit against the first of these two sentences for the time he spent in prison under the first of his two old sentences on the same charge and conviction, it is the proper function of the department of corrections to determine the appropriate amount of credit for such prison time).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donald Edward HAMPTON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
81-1374.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov 10, 1982.
421 So. 2d 775
Cowart.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Leonard R. Ross, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

COWART, Judge.

This is an appeal from a resentencing after appellant's original two sentences were vacated on appeal.[1]

We have examined the record and find the trial judge adequately extended allocution and did not err in modifying the split sentence to a sentence of confinement only. See Lowery v. State, 418 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) [1982 FLW 1846].

Appellant also complains that while the trial judge specifically gave him credit against the first of the two new sentences for the 126 days he spent in the county jail before his original sentence, as directed by section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1981), the trial judge did not give him credit against his new sentences for the time he had spent in prison under the vacated sentences. While we agree that appellant is entitled to credit against the first of his two new sentences for the time he spent in prison under the first of his two old sentences on the same charge and conviction, we do not agree that the burden was on the trial judge to determine the credit for such prison time because that is the proper function of the Department of Corrections, which is charged with the function of discharging a prisoner from its custody at the proper time. The Department of Corrections has and maintains adequate records (§§ 944.17, 944.18, 944.25, Fla. Stat. (1981)), from which it can determine that sentences imposed at resentencing relate to the same crime and charges as did old sentences and calculate the total amount of time properly credited against sentences and commitments. That calculation involves a consideration of the time spent between sentencing and delivery to the actual custody of the Department (see § 921.161(2), Fla. Stat. (1981)) as well as grants and forfeitures of gain time (see § 944.275 and 944.28, Fla. Stat. (1981)), and other matters not available[*776] to the trial judge from the files and records of the court and its executive officer, the sheriff.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.

1 See Hampton v. State, 399 So.2d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).