Court Opinion

ID: 9404572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 15:04:37.969032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.553777
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed June 23, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                              No. 3D23-181
                       Lower Tribunal No. F99-2559

                        Rancifer Lynn Brown,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa
Pooler, Judge.

      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Andrew Stanton, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES and BOKOR, JJ.

     FERNANDEZ, C.J.
      Rancifer Lynn Brown appeals the resentencing order rendered by the

trial court on January 6, 2023, raising essentially two issues, 1) that the trial

court failed to award credit for time served as required by Florida law, and 2)

that the trial court was without jurisdiction to clarify or modify the sentence

imposed on January 6, 2023. The State of Florida filed its answer agreeing

that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to amend the appellant’s sentence

and suggested remanding to the trial court to award credit for time served as

required by Florida law.

      Having reviewed the record and considered the issues raised on

appeal, this court concludes that the trial court erred in failing to award credit

for time served as required by Florida law. See State v. Rabedeau, 2 So. 3d

191, 193 (Fla. 2009) (“When a criminal defendant is sentenced after being

convicted of a crime and serves some portion of that sentence, he or she is

entitled to receive credit for the actual service of that sentence, or any portion

thereof, in a resentencing for the same crime.”). On the second issue

articulated above, we note that the resentencing order of January 6, 2023,

did not award credit for time served; however, the transcript of the hearing

does reflect the trial court’s pronouncement that the appellant receive credit

for the time that he has previously served in prison. The State rightfully

concedes that the appellant is entitled to credit for time served.

                                        2
      Accordingly, the resentencing order of January 6, 2023, is affirmed and

any subsequent order entered by the trial court with the intent to clarify or

amend the sentence imposed on January 6, 2023, is quashed as the trial

court was without jurisdiction to enter any such orders absent the filing of a

motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.800(b). See Spear

v. State, 341 So. 3d 1106, 1110 (Fla. 2022). This cause is remanded to the

trial court to correct the sentencing order so that it comports to the oral

pronouncement awarding appellant credit for time served.

      Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                       3