QUESTION
               You asked whether the Social Security Administration (SSA) should repay Title II retirement
                  benefits it suspended during the number holder’s confinement where the state court
                  subsequently vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial.
               
               OPINION
               Because the state court ordered a new trial when it overturned the conviction in February
                  2016, and additional legal proceedings are required, SSA should not repay the benefits
                  it withheld during number holder’s confinement under the original conviction.
               
               BACKGROUND
               According to the information provided, on September XX, 2011, J~, the number holder
                  (NH), was found guilty of second-degree murder after a jury trial. On December XX,
                  2011, the court sentenced NH to serve 30 years in prison. NH appealed, after which
                  the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
               
               NH subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule
                  of Criminal Procedure 3.850, asserting ineffective assistance of trial and appellate
                  counsel. On February XX, 2016, the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in
                  and for O~ County, Florida, granted the motion, vacated his conviction and sentence,
                  and reversed for a new trial. The state appealed, and on June XX, 2017, the Florida
                  Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order. NH was released
                  from prison on July XX, 2017.
               
               Based on NH’s confinement in prison, SSA suspended NH’s retirement benefits from December
                  2011 to July 2017 pursuant to section 202(x) of the Social Security Act (Act). SSA
                  reinstated NH’s benefits as of August 2017 when NH was released from prison. NH contacted
                  SSA, asking SSA to reinstate his benefits from December 2011 to July 2017 because
                  his conviction had been vacated.
               
               DISCUSSION
               Under section 202(x) of the Act, SSA cannot pay Title II benefits to any individual
                  for any month (or part of a month) in which he or she is confined in jail, prison,
                  or other correctional facility for conviction of a criminal offense. See Act § 202(x)(1)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 404.468(a) (2017);*[1] Program Operations Manual System (POMS) GN 02607.001A.1.a. Title II benefits are suspended when an individual is convicted of a criminal offense
                  and sentenced to a period of confinement in a correctional facility. See POMS GN 02607.160A.1.b.
               Confinement is defined as residing in a correctional or mental health institution.
                  See Act § 202(x)(1)(A)(i)-(iii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.468(c); POMS GN 02607.001B.1. Confinement begins on the date the individual is admitted into custody after sentencing
                  and ends with pardon, parole, or end of sentence and an official release. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.468(c); POMS GN 02607.160A.3. A conviction includes a court verdict that finds a defendant guilty upon conclusion
                  of a trial. See POMS GN 02607.001B.2. The primary rationale underlying the prisoner suspension-of-payment provision is
                  that a convicted criminal defendant is maintained at public expense and has no need
                  for a continuing source of income, i.e., social security benefits. See POMS PR 06805.012A (PR 00-219).
               
               SSA may reopen a determination to suspend benefits if a conviction of a crime that
                  affected the individual’s right to receive benefits is overturned. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.988(c)(11)(ii). If a conviction is overturned and no additional legal
                  proceedings are required, SSA reinstates the individual’s suspended benefits and repays
                  any benefits that SSA withheld. See POMS GN 02607.200A.3.a. If a new trial is required when the court overturns a conviction and the individual
                  is released pending the new trial, SSA reinstates benefits effective the first full
                  month after the individual’s release from the correctional institution. See POMS GN 02607.200A.3.b. If the new trial results in a conviction and the court issues a sentence that includes
                  time served under the first conviction, SSA does not repay benefits for the period
                  already suspended on the first conviction. See POMS GN 02607.200A.3.b.
               Florida law provides, in part, that a Rule 3.850 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
                  sentence can be filed on the grounds that the judgment was entered or sentence was
                  imposed in violation of the United States or Florida Constitutions. See Fla. R. Crim. P. Rule 3.850(a)(1) (West 2017). “When a new trial is granted, the
                  new trial shall proceed in all respects as if no former trial had occurred.” Fla.
                  R. Crim. P. Rule 3.640.
               
               Here, the state court granted NH’s Rule 3.850 motion, vacated his conviction and sentence,
                  and ordered a new trial. Although the court vacated NH’s conviction, the court also
                  ordered a new trial. Therefore, additional legal proceedings are required, and NH
                  is not entitled, at this time, to repayment of benefits that SSA withheld during his
                  confinement. There is, however, the possibility that SSA may need to repay benefits
                  withheld during NH’s confinement if NH provides further documentation that he is acquitted
                  after a second trial or if the prosecutor permanently dismisses or declines to further
                  prosecute the case.
               
               CONCLUSION
               Because the state court ordered a new trial when it vacated NH’s conviction in February
                  2016, additional legal proceedings are required, and SSA should not repay the benefits
                  it withheld during NH’s confinement under the first conviction. The determination
                  as to whether SSA should repay the withheld benefits cannot be made until after disposition
                  of the pending trial.