Anthony Small, Jr. v. State of Florida

OCR transcription; preserved printed pages are authoritative

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

ANTHONY SMALL, JR.,
Appellant,

Vv.

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.

No. 4D2025-3217
[April 1, 2026]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.801 motion from the Circuit Court for
the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William Loy Roby, Judge;
L.T. Case Nos. 432023000829CFAXMX, 432023001108CFAXMX, and
432024000047CFAXMX.

Anthony Small, Jr., Milton, pro se.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sabina
Fernandez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Anthony Small, Jr., appeals a trial court’s order on his
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 motion for correction of jail
credit. We find error as to only one of the three sentences at issue below. !
As to lower court case number 432023CFO00829A, the trial court
erroneously split pre-sentence jail credit between two counts ordered to
run consecutively, when credit should have been awarded only on count
one. We therefore reverse and remand for correction of the judgment and
sentence for case number 432023CFO00829A. We affirm without
comment the other two sentences.

1 We find no error as to the trial court’s order on jail credit for lower court cases
432023CF001108A and 432024CFO00047A.

In case number 432023CF000829A, the trial court sentenced
Defendant to 60 months in prison for count one (possession of a
substituted cathinone) and 365 days for count two (driving with license
suspended with a prior conviction) to run consecutively. Although
Defendant was entitled to 470 days’ credit for time served, the trial court
split the total credit by awarding 105 days for count one and 365 days for
count two.

The State conceded error below, asserting that the trial court should
have awarded Defendant 470 days’ credit on count one.? This is correct.
See Canete v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 967 So. 2d 412, 415-16 (Fla. lst DCA
2007) (“[A] defendant who is convicted of multiple offenses and sentenced
to consecutive terms of imprisonment must be given presentence jail credit
only on the first of the consecutive sentences.”) (emphasis added) (citations
omitted); Steadman v. State, 23 So. 3d 811, 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
(determining that a defendant who receives consecutive sentences “must
be given presentence jail credit only on the first of the consecutive
sentences”) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); Kopson v. State, 162 So.
3d 93, 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (acknowledging that a sentence applying
jail credit to each consecutive sentence is not a valid sentence, rather, jail
credit must be awarded to only the first of consecutive sentences).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for correction of jail credit as to
case number 432023CF000829A to reflect 470 days of credit on count one.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

May, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.

2 The State did not concede error on appeal in response to this Court’s order to
show cause.