JOSEPH E. BLAIR v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 21-3214

In 2007 Blair was placed on 12 years probation; a prior VOP reinstated probation with a 3‑year prison term and he had 300 days of prior credit.
In 2019 Blair was found to have willfully and substantially violated probation; the court orally pronounced a 60‑month DOC sentence and referenced existing jail/DOC credits, instructing DOC to calculate prior DOC credit.
The written sentence duplicated a 300‑day credit for the new VOP (in addition to the original 300 days), creating double credit when DOC computed time.
DOC alerted the court; the court amended the sentence to remove the duplicated 300 days (giving two days of VOP credit). Blair successfully moved to reinstate the 300 days, but the state then moved to correct and the court again rescinded the duplicated credit.
The Fourth DCA affirmed: the duplication was a scrivener’s error correctable under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b), and correcting the error did not violate double jeopardy; court remanded to add the two days of credit Blair actually earned.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to correct sentence after 60 days	Blair: State lacked jurisdiction to move to modify sentence more than 60 days after sentencing (invoking rule 3.800(c)).	State: Motion was properly brought under rule 3.800(b) to correct a scrivener’s error; state may file when it benefits defendant or corrects scrivener’s errors.	The court held the correction was permissible under rule 3.800(b) as a scrivener’s error; timing under 3.800(c) not controlling.
Written order duplicated jail credit vs. oral pronouncement	Blair: The written order reflected the court’s pronouncement and should stand (300 days).	State: The written order mistakenly duplicated prior credit; oral pronouncement and record show only original 300 days and minimal VOP booking credit.	The court found the written sentence contained a clerical miscalculation that duplicated credit and was correctable as a scrivener’s error.
Whether rescinding the duplicated credit violates double jeopardy	Blair: Rescinding credited time after sentencing increases his punishment and violates double jeopardy.	State: Double jeopardy does not protect a defendant’s benefit from a judge’s clerical or mathematical error; correcting unearned credit does not increase sentence.	The court held no double jeopardy violation: correcting unearned/clerical credit does not increase the sentence and double jeopardy doesn’t bar correction here.

Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003) (miscalculation or clerical errors in written sentence may be corrected as scrivener’s errors)
Migdal v. State, 970 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (discrepancies between oral pronouncement and written sentence are scrivener’s errors)
Cheshire v. State, 568 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1990) (double jeopardy does not entitle a defendant to benefit from judge’s clerical mistakes)
Gallinat v. State, 941 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (correcting erroneous jail credit does not increase a sentence; limited exceptions exist)
Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1947) (judicial error does not automatically grant immunity to the defendant)
Goene v. State, 577 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 1991) (double jeopardy protects a defendant’s legitimate expectations about sentence length)
Marshall v. State, 78 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (example of discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written sentence)
Douze v. State, 25 So. 3d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (rescinding jail credit was illegal where credit was part of negotiated plea)
Barbesco v. State, 264 So. 3d 338 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (conflicting line: courts may not rescind jail credit once awarded)
King v. State, 913 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (court lacks authority to rescind improperly awarded jail credit)