Cases from cite.case.law:

ORANGE COUNTY, v. STATE, 187 So. 3d 322 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See §§ 922.051; 775.08(1), Fla. . . . Section 922.051 provides: Imprisonment in county jail, term of 1 year or less When a statute expressly . . .

M. VEGA, v. STATE, 6 So. 3d 109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 922.051, Fla. . . . As the trial court explained in its order, section 922.051 prohibits consecutive county jail sentences . . . Consecutive misdemeanor county jail sentences are permissible; section 922.051 does not apply to misdemeanors . . . Section 922.051 does not apply because he was not sentenced to jail time for his felony offense. . . . Flores, 974 So.2d at 559 (explaining that section 922.051 “is inapplicable where county jail time is . . .

FLORES, v. STATE, 974 So. 2d 556 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . In challenging the validity of his sentence, Flores relies primarily on section 922.051, Florida Statutes . . . Section 922.051 provides as follows: § 922.051 Imprisonment in County Jail, Term of One Year of Less. . . . By contrast, if a defendant is convicted of both a misdemeanor and a felony, section 922.051 would prevent . . . We found that section 922.051 prohibited the trial court from imposing a five year prison sentence on . . . There was no violation of section 922.051. AFFIRMED. . . .

J. LEACH, v. STATE, 774 So. 2d 899 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence in which he asserted that his sentence violated section 922.051 . . . If it was, his sentence violates section 922.051, Florida Statutes (1999). . . .

MILLS, v. STATE, 740 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 922.051, Fla. Stat. (1998); Monteleone v. . . .

MONTELEONE, v. STATE, 702 So. 2d 595 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Singleton; § 922.051, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

STATE v. TROUTMAN,, 685 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 1996)

. . . This case involves the interpretation of section 922.051, Florida Statutes (1995), which reads as follows . . . So.2d 700 (Fla.1972), we adopted Judge Carroll’s dissenting opinion in which he interpreted section 922.051 . . . In support of his position that section 922.051 prohibits county jail terms in excess of one year for . . . consecutive sentences to the county jail of 364 days each for a felony and a misdemeanor violated section 922.051 . . . Singleton to refine our decision in Baker and held that the one-year county jail limitation of section 922.051 . . .

DAVILA, v. STATE, 680 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Id. at 280 and authorities cited therein; see § 922.051, Fla. Stat. . . .

BENNETT, v. STATE, 672 So. 2d 634 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . He argues that his cumulative sentences exceed the one-year limitation set forth in section 922.051, . . . appellant’s cumulative county jail sentences exceed the one-year limitation established by section 922.051 . . .

MEADOWS, v. STATE, 671 So. 2d 279 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . State, 661 So.2d 960, 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citing § 922.051, Fla.Stat. (1993) and Singleton v. . . .

HAYES, a k a v. STATE, 669 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . . § 922.051, Fla.Stat.; Gilbert v. . . .

TROGDON, v. STATE, 670 So. 2d 177 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . The reasoning of these cases is based on section 922.051, Florida Statutes (1993), which provides: When . . . Although the state in our appeal argues that the above interpretation of section 922.051 should not be . . .

A. BACHMAN, v. STATE, 680 So. 2d 473 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . State, 509 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); § 922.051, Fla.Stat. (1995). . . .

GILBERT, v. STATE, 661 So. 2d 960 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . . § 922.051, Fla. Stat. (1993); Singleton v. State, 554 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1990). . . .

ARMSTRONG, v. STATE, 656 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1995)

. . . In reconciling the sentencing guidelines and section 922.051, Florida Statutes (1987), this Court concluded . . . that the one-year county jail limitation of section 922.051 applies to sentences imposed under the guidelines . . . Section 922.051 provides: “When a statute expressly directs that imprisonment be in a state prison, the . . . in the county jail if the total of the prisoner’s cumulative sentences is not more than 1 year.” § 922.051 . . . By its plain language, section 922.051 does not apply to misdemeanors. . . .

BASIC ENERGY CORPORATION, v. HAMILTON COUNTY, a a, 652 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Section 922.051, Florida Statutes (1993) also recognizes the distinction between state prisons and county . . .

CHENEY, v. STATE, 640 So. 2d 103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . misdemeanor, with second jail term being a condition of probation on felony conviction, violated section 922.051 . . .

DEWITT, v. STATE, 639 So. 2d 694 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . State, 509 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (improper under section 922.051, Florida Statutes to impose . . .

FLEMING, v. STATE, 637 So. 2d 945 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Fleming claims that section 922.051 prohibits the imposition of the one year county jail term as a condition . . .

WHICHARD, v. STATE, 630 So. 2d 231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . State, 554 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1990); § 922.051, Fla.Stat. (1991); § 921.001(5)(6), Fla.Stat. (1991); Fla.R.Crim.P . . .

ANDERSON, v. STATE, 617 So. 2d 827 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Section 922.051, Florida Statutes, which applies only to felonies, see Dade County v. . . .

LUSINK, v. STATE, 576 So. 2d 935 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Section 922.051 Florida Statutes (1989) provides: Imprisonment in county jail, term of one year or less . . .

WEBB, v. STATE, 561 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Section 922.051, Florida Statutes (1987) does not apply here because the contempt did not even occur . . .

A. SINGLETON, v. STATE, 554 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1990)

. . . Singleton contends that the requirement that he serve a term greater than one year violated section 922.051 . . . The state argues that section 922.051 (which limits county jail terms to one year) appears to directly . . . We conclude that the sentencing guidelines and section 922.051 can be harmoniously construed and therefore . . . The district court correctly concluded that the consecutive felony sentence violated section 922.051. . . . Section 922.051 is not applicable in this situation where the trial court was sentencing Singleton at . . .

C. ROBINSON, v. STATE, 548 So. 2d 908 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Fla. 5th DCA 1989), in that they constitute interrupted sentences.' (2) They are violative of Section 922.051 . . .

A. SINGLETON, v. STATE, 540 So. 2d 233 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . On appeal Singleton contends that his sentence violates section 922.051, which provides: When a statute . . . computation of misdemeanor jail time, which has never been part of the equation used to determine a section 922.051 . . . State, 509 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the policy considerations underlying section 922.051— i.e. . . . The majority opinion in Kline relied on section 922.051, but overlooked subsequent and superseding statutory . . .

GWYNN, v. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,, 527 So. 2d 866 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Defendant challenges his detention in the Orange County jail for more than one year, relying on section 922.051 . . . condition thereof for a felony consecutive to a misdemeanor county jail sentence is not valid under section 922.051 . . . Kline specifically noted that section 922.051 applies only to felony sentences and is not applicable . . . incarceration for a period of years resulting from consecutive misdemeanor sentences violated section 922.051 . . .

KEMP, v. STATE, 526 So. 2d 214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . argues that the trial court erred in refusing to credit her pursuant to sections 921.187(l)(e) and 922.051 . . .

GRINER, v. STATE, 523 So. 2d 789 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . sentenced to 364 days in the county jail as a sentence alternative under section 921.187(l)(e) and section 922.051 . . .

KLINE, v. STATE, 509 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . However, I do not agree that the felony sentence imposed violates Section 922.051, Florida Statutes, . . . , the majority indulges an unjustifiably broad and unnecessary, albeit arguable, reading of Section 922.051 . . . In 1961, Section 922.051 was amended to provide that from and after January 1, 1963, no felony sentence . . . Section 922.051 was amended again in 1967 to read: Whenever punishment by imprisonment is prescribed, . . . Baker, supra, wherein the Supreme Court adopted Judge Carroll’s interpretation of Section 922.051. . . . Appellant contends that this is an illegal sentence, in violation of section 922.051, Florida Statutes . . . Appellant contests the consecutive county jail terms on the basis of section 922.051, Florida Statutes . . . Section 922.051 provides: Imprisonment in county jail, term of 1 year or less. . . . We conclude, however, that the consecutive felony sentence violates section 922.051 because it extends . . . Discussing the meaning and purpose of section 922.051, he stated: Inspection of § 922.051 shows it is . . .

AMREIN, v. STATE, 504 So. 2d 783 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . Section 922.051, Florida Statutes, proscribes any county jail term exceeding one year where a statute . . . Baker, 265 So.2d 700 (Fla.1972), the Florida Supreme Court found that section 922.051 applies only to . . . consecutive one year sentences in the county jail for three misdemeanor convictions, finding that section 922.051 . . .

BROXTON, v. STATE, 453 So. 2d 98 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . that the 364-day periods of incarceration be served consecutively rendered the order illegal under § 922.051 . . .

WILLNER, v. STATE, 350 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . Pursuant to Section 922.051, Florida Statutes (1973) the judge properly sentenced the defendant to the . . .

MANCEBO, v. STATE, 338 So. 2d 268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . Appellant argues that Section 922.051 Florida Statutes (1975) and the cases of Dade County v. . . .

STATE v. JONES,, 327 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1976)

. . . FOR A PERIOD OF YEARS IS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL (FOR A PERIOD AS PERMITTED BY § 922.051 . . . contended the. sentence imposed was in excess of the maximum limits because of the provision of Section 922.051 . . .

E. WOODRUFF, v. STATE, 309 So. 2d 55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the provisions of §§ 948.01(4) and 922.051 . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 311 So. 2d 775 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . . § 922.051; Dade County v. Baker, 265 So.2d 700 (Fla.1972). . . .

LEWIS, v. STATE, 298 So. 2d 540 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . . § 922.051 (1971) and F.S. § 948.01(4) (1971). . . .

JONES, v. STATE, 296 So. 2d 519 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . By § 922.051 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the defendant could be sentenced thereon to imprisonment in the county . . . for a period of years is sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail (for a period as permitted by § 922.051 . . .

C. REYNOLDS, v. STATE, 293 So. 2d 743 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . court’s opinion reported at 258 So.2d 511) in which the Florida Supreme Court stated that under Section 922.051 . . .

O. WATERS, v. STATE, 290 So. 2d 503 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . Section 922.051, F.S.A., provides as follows: “When a statute expressly directs that imprisonment be . . . therefore an actual sentence of only three months was imposed, well within the limitation set forth in F.S. 922.051 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE, 280 So. 2d 518 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . penitentiary, elected to sentence the appellant to the County jail pursuant to the provisions of § 922.051 . . . Baker, Fla.1972, 265 So.2d 700; § 922.051, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . . . Reversed and remanded with directions. . “§ 922.051 Imprisonment in county jail, term one year or less . . .

DADE COUNTY, a v. BAKER, In, 265 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1972)

. . . . § 922.051, F.S.A. . . . the trial judge would remain free to alter the manner of sentencing so as to come within Fla.Stat. § 922.051 . . .

DADE COUNTY, a v. BAKER, In, 258 So. 2d 511 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . defendant in the county jail for a period of two years through cumulative sentences was prohibited by § 922.051 . . . make incontestable by the county the question of the validity of that feature of the sentences under § 922.051 . . . The statutory section involved (§ 922.051 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) is entitled: “Imprisonment in county jail . . . Inspection of § 922.051 shows it is concerned with sentences for felonies, since the offenses it deals . . . Section' 922.051 permits the court, upon conviction of a person for such an offense, to provide for imprisonment . . . . § 922.051 which reads as follows: “922.051 Imprisonment in county jail, term of one year or less. . . . Dade County filed petition to vacate the sentences in both cases upon the ground that F.S.A. § 922.051 . . .

BROWN, v. STATE, 232 So. 2d 55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

. . . Then see F.S. 922.051, F.S.A. . . .

B. MICHELL, v. STATE CALLAHAN, Jr. a k a, 154 So. 2d 701 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)

. . . Section 922.051, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., would permit tlie court.to sentence the defendant to one year . . .