CHIPMAN v. STATE (2020)

Brian Chipman appeals his sentence on the grounds that the trial court erred in failing to award him credit for time served prior to resentencing. He also appeals the trial court's February 16, 2018, order dismissing his motion to withdraw pleas as untimely. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Chipman argues, and the State concedes, that he is entitled to credit for the time he spent in prison from the date of the original sentencing to the date of resentencing. See Peters v. State, 198 So. 3d 992, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“Where a defendant is resentenced due to an illegality in the original sentence, the new sentence typically is measured from the date of the original sentence.”). Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to correct the sentencing order to reflect Chipman's entitlement to credit for time served since the date of the original sentencing. See Beich v. State, 93 So. 3d 407, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (reversing and remanding for the court to check the box indicating the defendant's entitlement to prison credit); Andrews v. State, 822 So. 2d 540, 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (same).

Chipman's claim regarding the trial court's February 16, 2018, order is barred by the law of the case doctrine because this court has already affirmed it on appeal. See Chipman v. State, 269 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); see also R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Howard, 286 So. 3d 936, 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (holding that a per curiam affirmance established law of the case); McCray v. State, 230 So. 3d 495, 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (“The law of the case doctrine requires 'that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.' “ (quoting Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001))); RTM Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. G/W Riverwalk, LLC, 893 So. 2d 583, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Canady, J., concurring) (explaining that even though a previous appellate decision in the case “was a per curiam affirmance without opinion,” it established the law of the case on the matter in question). Thus, we affirm on this issue.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

ATKINSON, Judge.

KHOUZAM, C.J., and KELLY, J., Concur.