CORDOVA V. STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2003 FELIX CORDOVA, ** Appellant, ** vs. ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. CASE NO. 3D03-2208 ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 01-7120B ** Opinion filed September 24, 2003. An appeal under Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Dennis J. Murphy, Judge. Felix Cordova, in proper person. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee. Before COPE and LEVY, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM. Felix Cordova appeals an order additional credit for time served. denying his motion for Based on the information presented in the motion, we find no error in the calculation of the credit for jail time served prior to sentencing. Defendant- appellant Cordova is entitled to credit only for the time incarcerated prior to sentencing, not (as he incorrectly argues) credit for time free on bond prior to sentencing. See § 921.161(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). Regarding the question of credit for time served subsequent to sentencing, we affirm the order without prejudice to the defendant to exhaust his administrative remedies within the Department of See Grant v. State, 837 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA Corrections. 2003); Lucio v. State, 673 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). To the extent that defendant may be claiming to have exhausted his administrative remedies, we affirm without prejudice to defendant filing a petition for mandamus and attaching thereto documentation from the Department of Corrections reflecting the postsentencing credit awarded and the Department s ruling on his inmate grievance. Lucio. The defendant argues that he is entitled to credit for the entire time period between sentencing and his delivery to the Department of Corrections, postjudgment release. including time he was free on He derives that interpretation from the wording of subsection 921.161(2), Florida Statutes (2001), which requires the jailer to certify several postjudgment time periods, including any periods after sentence that the prisoner was at liberty on bond. Id. § 921.161(2)(b); see State v. Peters, 526 So. 2 2d 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).* In reality, time spent under subsection 921.16(2) refers back to a similar phrase used in subsection 921.16(1) and means time spent in custody. See id. § 921.16(1) ( time she or he spent in the county jail ). The jailer is required to certify the dates that the defendant was at liberty on bond or otherwise, id. § 921.161(2)(b), (c), so that these periods can be subtracted from the total time period between sentencing and delivery to the Department of Corrections. The defendant is only entitled to credit for the time incarcerated between sentencing and delivery to the Department of Corrections. Affirmed. * Subsection 921.161(2), Florida Statutes, states: (2) In addition to other credits, a person sentenced to imprisonment in custody of the Department of Corrections shall receive credit on her or his sentence for all time spent between sentencing and being placed in custody of the department. When delivering a prisoner to the department, the custodian of the local jail shall certify to it in writing: (a) The date the sentence was imposed and the date the prisoner was delivered to the department. (b) The dates of any periods after sentence the prisoner was at liberty on bond. (c) The dates and reasons for any other times the prisoner was at liberty after sentence. (d) The offender-based transaction system number or numbers from the uniform arrest report or reports established pursuant to s. 943.05(2). The certificate shall be prima facie evidence of the facts certified. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
