From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henderson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Feb 11, 1994
632 So. 2d 653 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Summary

holding award of credit time after sentencing is matter for department of corrections by way of a writ of mandamus

Summary of this case from Knox v. State

Opinion

No. 92-3146.

February 11, 1994.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Orange County, James C. Hauser, J.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Nancy Ryan, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Judy Bone, Asst. General Counsel, Dept. of Corrections, Tallahassee, for appellee.


James Henderson was charged and convicted by a jury of: Count I — second degree murder; Count II — use of a firearm in the commission of a felony; and Count III — carrying a concealed firearm. On direct appeal, this court reversed Henderson's convictions on Counts I and II, 507 So.2d 632. Subsequently, on certiorari review, the Florida Supreme Court quashed this court's decision and reinstated the convictions, 521 So.2d 1113. Henderson, who had been released from the Department of Corrections by virtue of our mandate, was reincarcerated. The trial court denied Henderson's motion for credit against his sentences for the time he was at liberty. We affirm.

Without addressing the merits of Henderson's motion, we hold he has sought the wrong remedy. We recognize that presentence jail time credit is a matter within the purview of the trial court and the failure to make a proper award affects the validity of a sentence. Morgan v. State, 557 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). However, an award of credit after sentencing is a matter for the Department of Corrections. See Reynolds v. State, 590 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding the request for credit after sentencing did not impact the legality of the sentence, and thus was not properly before the trial court); Brown v. State, 427 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also § 921.161(2), Fla. Stat. (1993).

Henderson's entitlement to relief, if any, is properly sought through administrative proceedings and, if necessary, by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus naming the Department of Corrections as respondent. Killings v. State, 567 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Brown.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, C.J., and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Henderson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Feb 11, 1994
632 So. 2d 653 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

holding award of credit time after sentencing is matter for department of corrections by way of a writ of mandamus

Summary of this case from Knox v. State
Case details for

Henderson v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES HENDERSON, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Feb 11, 1994

Citations

632 So. 2d 653 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Citing Cases

Knox v. State

Appellant asserts that the department of corrections has failed to acknowledge any of his pre-sentence credit…

Thies v. Crosby

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Reynolds v. State, 590 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Henderson v. State, 632 So.2d…