From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nieves v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
May 17, 2002
816 So. 2d 822 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

No. 5D01-832.

May 17, 2002.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, John M. Griesbaum, Judge.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Benjamin Nieves appeals the revocation of his probation and an order denying his request for additional jail time credit pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). We affirm the revocation and the credit awarded by the trial court, but certify conflict with Bryant v. State, 787 So.2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) and Penny v. State, 778 So.2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

In Bryant and Penny, our sister courts held that credit for time served begins at the time that a detainer is issued. This court has reaffirmed its position taken in Price v. State, 598 So.2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), holding that for the purpose of measuring mandatory jail time credit under section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes, a defendant is only entitled to jail time credit from the date that he was arrested on the relevant charges, not from the date that a detainer is issued. The Fourth District also takes that position. Gethers v. State, 798 So.2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED; CERTIFY CONFLICT.

THOMPSON, C.J., PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nieves v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
May 17, 2002
816 So. 2d 822 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

Nieves v. State

Case Details

Full title:BENJAMIN NIEVES, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: May 17, 2002

Citations

816 So. 2d 822 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Labarbara v. State

We note, however, that there appears to be a divergence of opinion among the district courts concerning…