RENALDO L. SAMPSON, 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 motion to correct sentence without attaching records conclusively refuting the allegations.
Appellant sought presentence jail time credit for time spent in two county jails. The trial court awarded credit for time in one jail but not the othe…
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.
Renaldo Sampson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct his sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He challenges the amount of presentence jail time credit he received on his sentence for charges in Pasco County. We reverse.
Appellant alleges that he was incarcerated in Hillsborough County jail on July 27, 1987, when detainer warrants issued for charges pending in Pasco and Pinellas Counties. On February 1, 1988, he was transported to Pasco County jail to await sentencing on the Pasco County charges. On April 20, 1988, he was sentenced to a prison term which was to run concurrent with the other sentences yet to be imposed in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. He claims he was entitled to a total of 266 days’ credit for all the time spent in Pasco and Hillsborough County jails. The trial court awarded him credit for the 79 days he spent in Pasco County jail, but did not award him any credit for the time spent in Hillsborough County jail. These allegations, if true, may entitle appellant to relief. See Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986); Pearson v. State, 538 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
The trial court summarily denied the motion without attachments from the records or files that conclusively refute appellant’s allegations. We therefore reverse the order of denial and remand for further proceedings. On remand, should the trial court again deny the motion, it must attach portions of the records or files conclusively showing that appellant is entitled to no relief. 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.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…la. 1st DCA 1987); Inclima v. State, 625 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Littlejohn v. State, 616 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Hayes v. State, 610 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Sampson v. State, 598 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Terry v. State, 567 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). In Inclima, the court observed that “[t]his requirement is now specifically contained in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g), which became effective on January 1, 1993…
-
Bunch v. State, 622 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ppropriate. By case law, the requirement of attachment of pertinent portions of the record to support summary denial of Rule 3.800(a) motions has previously been established. See Ransom v. State, 601 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Sampson v. State, 598 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The State suggests we should remand for the court to comply with recently amended Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g), which now deals with appeals of 3.800(a) motions. Although not necessary in this case because we have…
-
Paul Jacquin & Sons, Inc. v. City OF Port ST. Lucie, 69 So. 3d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ion, and because the contract will not be awarded to the Construction Division on re-bid, the issue is moot. “An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect. Godwin v. State, 598 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla.1992) (citing DeHoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So. 2d 258 (1943)). “A case is ‘moot’ when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist.” Id. (citing Blade's Law Dictionary 1008 (6th ed. 1990)). “A moot case g…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1986)
- Pearson v. State, 538 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)