LEE RAY ISOM, 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 claim for presentence jail time credit without attaching records conclusively refuting the allegation for all concurrent sentences.
Appellant claimed he did not receive proper credit for presentence jail time served. The sheriff's records indicated specific dates of service, and th…
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 Presentence Jail Time Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lee Ray Isom appeals the summary denial of his motions to correct his concurrent sentences received in four felony cases. We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s allegations of scoresheet error and failure to award gain time. We reverse as to the allegation regarding presentence jail time credit.
Appellant claims the trial court failed to award him credit for presentence jail time allegedly served from December 27, 1989, through January 13, 1990. He alleges he received credit for only fifty-five days. The sheriff’s department’s records attached to appellant’s motion show that he should have been given credit on his sentences for the time served from December 28,1989, through January 10,1990, and for the fifty-five days from March 30, 1990, through May 23, 1990. The trial court denied the request, attaching to the order only one of appellant’s sentences which showed he was given seventy-six days’ credit on one case. The attachment does not refute conclusively that he received the proper amount of credit on his other concurrent sentences.
Accordingly, we remand this case for the trial court to reconsider the request for presentence jail time credit. If on remand, the trial court again determines the motion should be denied, it should attach to its order 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 further appellate review.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bennett v. State, 597 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ncerning the consequences of gain time. After an appeal of the denial of his first motion, this court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion as to that one issue and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. See Bennett v. State, 579 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Following an evidentiary hearing in the trial court, the trial court concluded that Bennett’s attorney did give him erroneous information concerning the accrual of gain time. Bennett was given the option of withdrawing his plea…