EDDIE LOUIE HOLLY, SR., 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.
Appellant's motion for jail time credit was reversed and remanded because the trial court's denial lacked sufficient record support to conclusively refute his allegation of pre-sentencing incarceration.
A trial court must either grant a jail time credit motion or, if denying it, attach record portions that conclusively refute the defendant's allegations of incarceration.
[1] When a trial court denies a defendant's motion for jail time credit, it must attach record portions that conclusively refute the defendant's allegations of incarceration,…
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 intelligenceAppellant claimed he was incarcerated in Hillsborough County jail from November 21, 1989, to March 1, 1990, and sought 101 days credit against sentenc…
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 Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order that denied his motion to allow jail time credit. In the motion, appellant alleged that he was incarcerated in the Hillsborough County jail from November 21,1989, to March 1, 1990, and was entitled to 101 days credit for this jail time against his sentences in three separate cases. The trial court denied the motion and attached to its order the judgments and sentences in each case. These attachments do not conclusively refute appellant’s allegation that he was incarcerated in the county jail on November 21, 1989, for the charges and remained there prior to sentencing.
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying appellant’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, unless the case files and records conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief, the trial court shall order the state to file an answer. After receipt of the answer, the trial court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the trial court should summarily deny the motion again, it shall attach such portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’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.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Villanueva v. State, 637 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…n is necessary so as to conform to the trial court’s oral findings at the conclusion of the probation revocation hearing. See Banks v. State, 626 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Hogwood v. State, 615 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Fairman v. State, 576 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); King v. State, 451 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Affirmed as modified.…
-
Whitehead v. State, 654 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ate, 636 So. 2d 890, 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Trueblood v. State, 635 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); White v. [*654] State, 624 So. 2d 811, 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Armstead v. State, 612 So. 2d 623, 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Fairman v. State, 576 So. 2d 948, 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Wilcher v. State, 524 So. 2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In addition, the sentences imposed for counts five and seven, in the written sentencing order, were illegal since both sentences exceeded the statutory maximum sent…
-
Washington v. State, 731 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…robation. However, as the State properly concedes, the order of revocation must be vacated, and the cause remanded with directions for entry of a written order of revocation that conforms to the trial court’s oral pronouncements.1 Fairman v. State, 576 So. 2d 948, 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded with directions. . At the revocation of probation hearing, the trial court specifically stated that although the defendant had been arrested, it was not finding a viola…