LAW.coLAW.co

Haynes v. State of Florida

2026-08-28

Summary

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of fifty additional days of jail credit but reversed and remanded because the record did not conclusively refute Haynes' claim to one additional day of credit.

Michael Haynes appealed a trial court's denial of his motion seeking additional jail credit. Haynes claimed he deserved fifty additional days of credit for time spent in county jail before sentencing, arguing he was entitled to credit from his May 24, 2024 arrest through December 23, 2025. The trial court found that Haynes had already properly received 529 days of credit covering the period from arrest through his November 4, 2025 sentencing date, and rejected his request for the additional fifty days.

On appeal, the District Court of Appeal examined whether the record conclusively showed Haynes was entitled to no relief. While the court agreed that the fifty additional days were not warranted, it found that the record did not conclusively refute Haynes' entitlement to one additional day of credit. The court referenced prior precedent establishing that under Florida's jail credit statute, defendants must receive credit for all time served in county jail before sentencing, and the allocation of such credit depends on when a defendant was placed in the custody of the Department of Corrections.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Entitlement to jail credit for time served before sentencing under Florida Statutes section 921.161(1)
  • When a record conclusively refutes a defendant's claim for additional jail credit
  • Allocation of jail credit based on timing of Department of Corrections custody

Procedural posture

Haynes appealed from a circuit court order summarily denying his motion for correction of jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MICHAEL HAYNES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2026-0604

August 28, 2026

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Frederick P. Mercurio, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Haynes appeals from the order summarily denying his motion for correction of jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

In his timely filed motion for correction of jail credit, Mr. Haynes sought an additional fifty days of credit for jail time served prior to sentencing alleging that he was entitled to credit from the date of his arrest, May 24, 2024, until December 23, 2025. The postconviction court found that Mr. Haynes' claim was conclusively refuted by the court record and ruled that Mr. Haynes properly received 529 days of credit "for time he spent in jail from his initial date of arrest on May 24, 2024, until his date of sentencing on November 4, 2025."1

The record attachments confirm the postconviction court's findings that Mr. Haynes was arrested on May 24, 2024, and sentenced on November 4, 2025, and that he is not entitled to fifty additional days of credit for jail time served before he was sentenced. However, the postconviction record does not conclusively refute Mr. Haynes' claim as to one additional day of credit. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) ("On appeal from the denial of relief, unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order must be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief."). In DeLeon-Perez v. State, 373 So. 3d 966, 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023), this court explained circumstances in which credit for the day of sentencing should be awarded under section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (2022):

Section 921.161(1) clearly and unequivocally provides

that a defendant must be given credit for all of the time

served in the county jail before sentencing. The statute also

provides the procedure for crediting a defendant for time

spent in the county jail "between sentencing and being placed

in custody of the department." Because Mr. DeLeon-Perez

was not placed in the custody of the Department of

Corrections until the end of the day on March 4, 2022, the

1 The postconviction court explained that it lacked authority to

award credit for jail time served after Mr. Haynes was sentenced and that Mr. Haynes could seek credit for postsentencing jail time through administrative proceedings with the Department of Corrections. See Rogers v. State, 334 So. 3d 672, 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (noting that the Department of Corrections awards post-sentencing jail credit); Valdespino v. State, 209 So. 3d 64, 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ("If the defendant has not received postsentencing credit, he may submit his request for this additional time to the DOC. If he is unsuccessful in obtaining the requested relief from the DOC, and he exhausts his administrative remedies, he may then seek mandamus relief.").

2

credit for time served should have been allocated to the time

he spent in the county jail and not his prison sentence . . . . DeLeon-Perez, 373 So. 3d at 968.2 Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court's order and remand for reconsideration.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

LUCAS, C.J., and MORRIS and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

2 The same version of section 921.161 was in effect at the time of

Mr. Haynes' sentencing.

3