JESSE DONOFRIO
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.
Jesse Donofrio appealed the dismissal of his motion for jail credit, which was rejected as facially insufficient for lack of an oath. The court reversed, holding that Donofrio's written declaration under penalty of perjury satisfied the oath requirement under Florida law.
The court held that the written declaration complied with the oath requirement. The declaration, made under penalty of perjury and certifying that Donofrio had read the motion and that its facts were true and correct, met the requirements of rule 3.801(c) and Florida Statutes section 92.525(2).
[1] A written declaration made under penalty of perjury, complying with section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes, satisfies the oath requirement for a motion filed under Florida R…
[2] A motion for jail credit is facially sufficient if it includes a written declaration under penalty of perjury that the movant has read the motion and certifies the truthf…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The motion contained a written declaration that complied with the requirements of section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (2015). The written declaration was made under penalty of perjury, provided that Donofrio had read the motion, and certified that the facts contained therein were true and correct.”
Establishes that the declaration on Donofrio's motion satisfied the statutory requirements for an oath.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonofrio filed a motion to correct jail credit in February 2016 pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. The postconviction court dismiss…
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 Motion For Correction Of Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Nick Nazaretian, Judge. Jesse Donofrio, pro se. NORTHCUTT, Judge. Jesse Donofrio filed a motion to correct jail credit pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 in February 2016. The postconviction court dismissed the motion as facially insufficient because it was not under oath as required by rule 3.801(c).
The order gave Donofrio sixty days in which to file an amended motion. Eventually, the court rendered a final order denying Donofrio's motion for jail credit with prejudice because Donofrio did not file an amended motion within the sixty days provided by the prior order. - 2 - The order dismissing Donofrio's motion for lack of an oath was mistaken. The motion contained a written declaration that complied with the requirements of section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (2015).
The written declaration was made under penalty of perjury, provided that Donofrio had read the motion, and certified that the facts contained therein were true and correct. The declaration was made at the end of the motion but above Donofrio's signature. The form and substance of the written declaration mirrored the written declaration contained in the form motion for jail credit contained in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.9875. As such, it met the requirements of rule 3.801(c). Cf. State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1993) (holding that unnotarized written declaration under section 92.525 satisfied oath requirement of rule 3.850); Theoc v. State, 832 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (same).
Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court's order denying Donofrio's motion for jail credit with prejudice and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded. SALARIO and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1993)
- Vance Loeffler v. State, 832 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)