Case Name: Robert Whitney BOWMAN, DOC # M16100, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-11-04
Citations: 203 So. 3d 969
Docket Number: No. 2D15-3639
Parties: Robert Whitney BOWMAN, DOC # M16100, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SILBERMAN and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 203
Pages: 969–969

Head Matter:
Robert Whitney BOWMAN, DOC # M16100, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 2D15-3639.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Nov. 4, 2016.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Ap-pellee.

Opinion:
LaROSE, Judge.
Robert Whitney Bowman appeals his judgments and sentences. He pleaded no contest to charges of criminal use of personal identification (count one) and grand theft (count two). The trial court sentenced Mr. Bowman to thirty months in prison for count one, to run .concurrently with thirty months in prison for count two. At sentencing, the trial court awarded Mr. Bowman ninety-two (92) days of jail credit for time served on count one. The written judgment and sentence is silent as to whether the jail credit is for one or both counts.
Mr. Bowman argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him. Specifically, he contends that, the trial court should have awarded jail credit for both counts. See Daniels v. State, 491 So.2d 643, 545 (Fla. 1986) ("[Wjhen . a defendant'receives [presentence] jail-time credit on a sentence that is to run concurrently with other sentences, those sentences must also reflect the credit for time served."); Ransone v. State, 48 So.3d 692, 694 (Fla.2010).
We reverse and remand for the trial court to sentence Mr. Bowman accordingly-
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
. Mr. Bowman filed an initial brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We ordered supplemental briefing pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149 (Fla. 1991), on the issue addressed here.