ARTHUR PHELPS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant's motion without attaching the record that refuted his claim.
The defendant alleged he did not receive proper credit for jail time served prior to sentencing. The trial court denied the motion, stating its record…
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 Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, in which he alleged that he had not been properly credited with time spent in jail prior to sentencing. Specifically, defendant alleged that he had been charged in May or June of 1985 in case numbers 85-4194, 85-4488, 85-4489, 85-4490 and had remained in jail until sentencing on June 13, 1986. Defendant contends that he was only awarded 99 days credit for jail time served prior to sentencing.
The trial court denied the motion, finding that the court’s files and records did not substantiate the defendant’s claim, but rather supported that the defendant was entitled to and received 99 days credit for time served. The trial court failed, however, to attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute the defendant’s allegations.
Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of the defendant’s motion and remand the matter to the trial court. If the trial court should summarily deny the motion again, it shall attach such portions of the record which conclusively refute the defendant’s allegations. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Stafford, 593 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1992)…989, he received a prison sentence after pleading guilty to violating his probation and to a new substantive offense, burglary of a dwelling. For reasons not at issue here, the district court reversed and ordered a new sentencing. Stafford v. State, 561 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). At resentencing, the trial court treated the original 1987 conviction as the “primary offense” for purposes of calculating the appropriate sentence under the sentencing guidelines. The district court found this to be error and a…
-
Stafford v. State, 573 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…court exceeded the maximum five year penalty for a third degree felony and used a score sheet which improperly scored juvenile offenses occurring more than three years before the new substantive offense. This court agreed and in Stafford v. State, 561 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) vacated the sentence because the maximum sentence for a third degree felony was exceeded and because the score sheet was improperly prepared and remanded for re-sentencing. On resentencing the court reduced the sentence to five…
-
Weems v. State, 627 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…charges, sentencing date, sentence, and jail time credit. However, the trial court’s order denying relief must include attachments which refute Weems’s allegations that he was incarcerated from April 24, 1991, to March 17, 1992. See Phelps v. State, 561 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We reverse the summary denial of Weems’s motion and remand this matter to the trial court. If the trial court should summarily deny the motion again, it shall attach such portions of the record which conclusively refute the all…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence