DAMION HARLEY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed a trial court's denial of jail credit, finding the trial court failed to attach necessary documentation to prove the appellant's claim was successive. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules regarding the appellate record.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred by not attaching the prior order to its denial, which prevented the appellate court from reviewing the basis for deeming the claim successive. Therefore, the denial could not stand on the record presented.
[1] When a trial court denies a successive motion for jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801(d), it must attach to its order either a copy of the prior or…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“No successive motions for jail credit will be considered.”
This quote from Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(d) was cited by the trial court as a basis for denial, but the appellate court found the procedural requirements for invoking this rule were not met.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought jail credit for 140 days spent in a state hospital during his incarceration. The trial court denied the motion, citing a prior unsucc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Supplementation Of Record cases and more on FLexlaw
KELSEY, J.
Appellant contends that he was improperly denied jail credit for 140 days that he spent in Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee during his incarceration. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for jail credit, noting that Appellant had unsuccessfully raised this issue previously. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(d) (“No successive motions for jail credit will be considered.”).
However, the trial court did not designate the earlier order denying relief as an attachment to the new order on appeal, and did not attach that order or any other documents showing that the issue had been raised previously and determined to be meritless. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(e) (incorporating portions of rule 3.850,
including subsection (f)); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(5) (“If the denial is based on the records in the case, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the final order.”).
The State moved to supplement the appeal record with the court’s earlier order. We denied the motion, citing the limited record contents authorized under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2)(A) (limiting record to “the motion, response, reply, order on the motion, motion for rehearing, response, reply, order on the motion for rehearing, and attachments to any of the foregoing, together with the certified copy of the notice of appeal”); and Levin v. State, 298 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (denying motion to supplement the record in Rule 3.850 appeal because requested documents were outside the scope of Rule 9.141(b)(2)(A)). The State then filed its answer brief, referencing and attaching the trial court’s earlier order—while acknowledging, correctly, that it was technically improper to do so. The State argued it was “a waste of judicial resources” to reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a new order with the earlier order actually attached to it, when the contents of the earlier order and its legal effect are undisputed.
We do not disagree. However, the law limits the record contents, and the trial court’s earlier order did not fall within such contents because it was not attached to the trial court’s order now on appeal. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to attach documents proving Appellant’s claims are successive, or to address the claim for jail credit on the merits. See Wright v. State, 222 So. 3d 620, 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (reversing and remanding to correct the same error); Copeland v. State, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1456 (Fla. 1st DCA June 18, 2021) (same).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WINOKUR, J., concurs; MAKAR, J., concurs in result with opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wright v. State, 222 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
- Shepard v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)