Case Title: Mark Charles v. State of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC95-753

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2000-07-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC95753
____________
MARK CHARLES,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[July 13, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Charles v. State, 751 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), a 
decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal citing as controlling authority its
opinion in Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in
part, disapproved in part, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S367 (Fla. May 11, 2000).  We have
jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420
(Fla. 1981).  
Charles argues that a sentencing error occurred under Tripp v. State, 622 So.
1In Maddox, we addressed the question of whether unpreserved sentencing errors should be
corrected in appeals filed in the window period between the effective date of section 924.051, Florida
Statutes (Supp. 1996), and our recent amendment to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) in
Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure 9.020(h), 9.140, & 9.600, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S530 (Fla. Nov. 12, 1999), reh'g granted, 25
Fla. L. Weekly S37 (Fla. Jan. 13, 2000).  The appeal in this case falls within the window period discussed
in Maddox. 
-2-
2d 941 (Fla. 1993), when the sentence imposed upon his revocation of probation
failed to award credit for time served on his primary offense.  In addition, Charles
contends that because his underlying offense was committed before October 1,
1989, he is entitled to credit for accrued gain time as the functional equivalent of
time spent in prison.  If a sentencing error occurred that is patent and serious
because it has a quantitative effect on the sentence and a qualitative effect on the
sentencing process, the error should be corrected as fundamental error.  See
Maddox v, State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S367, S369 (Fla. May 11, 2000).1  Because the
parties have not adequately briefed the merits of the alleged sentencing error at
issue, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings in light of our
opinion in Maddox.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
-3-
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Direct Conflict
Fifth District - Case No. 5D98-871 
(Putnam County)
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Rosemarie Farrell, Assistant Public Defender,
Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Anthony J. Golden, Kellie A. Nielan,
and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Respondent