JOSEPH LITTLEJOHN, 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.
Joseph Littlejohn appealed the denial of his motion to correct his sentence, claiming he was entitled to additional jail-time credit for time served in a related case. The court reversed and remanded, finding the trial court failed to adequately address whether the two theft cases involved the same offense and remanding for proper fact-finding.
The court reversed the denial of the motion to correct sentence and remanded for further proceedings. The trial court must determine whether the offenses in the two cases are the same, and if it again denies the motion, it must attach portions of the record refuting the appellant's allegations or allow the appellant to file a sworn motion under rule 3.850.
[1] A defendant is entitled to credit for time spent in jail awaiting sentencing if the charges in separate cases represent the same offense.
[2] A trial court must attach portions of the record and files refuting a defendant's allegations when denying a motion to correct sentence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“If the charges in each case represent different thefts, the court ruled correctly. See Keene v. State, 500 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA1986). If not, the court erred.”
Establishes the legal standard: whether the trial court's decision depends on whether both cases involve the same offense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLittlejohn was sentenced in case 92-11979 for felony petit theft on September 9, 1992, nine days after his arrest on September 1, 1992. He claimed he …
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 Felony Petit Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Littlejohn appeals the denial of his motion to correct sentence, which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse.
Appellant claims he received credit for only nine days spent in jail awaiting sentencing in this felony petit theft case, 92-11979. He claims he is entitled to 93 additional days’ credit for the time he spent in jail from May 6, 1992, through August 6, 1992, in case 92-11347. He alleges that 92-11347 was enhanced to a felony in 92-11979 and that the -cases are the same.
The trial court denied the motion, stating that the defendant was not arrested in 92-11979 until September 1, 1992. The trial court attached a computer printout verifying the arrest date. Both the appellant and the trial court agree that sentencing occurred in 92-11979 nine days later on September 9,1992. If the charges in each case represent different thefts, the court ruled correctly. See Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA1986). If not, the court erred.
The printout does not refute the allegation that the offenses were the same. The copy of the information in 92-11979, which was provided by the appellant, tends to substantiate his allegations. It charges that the third petit theft occurred on May 6, 1992, which was the same day the appellant allegedly began serving time in 92-11347. We do not have copies of any documents contained in 92-11347, and the state did not inform us in its response whether the theft in 92-11347 is the same theft giving rise to the charges in 92-11979.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of denial and remand the case for further proceedings. Should the trial court again deny the motion, it should attach portions of the record and files refuting the appellant’s allegations. If the files before this trial court do not contain any document that either refutes or substantiates the allegations, then the trial court should deny the motion without prejudice and permit the appellant to file a sworn motion pursuant to rule 3.850. See Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA1993); Hayes v. State, 610 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA1993). The appellant must file a timely notice of appeal to obtain further appellate review of any subsequent action of the trial court.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ent with respect to rule 3.800(a) proceedings. See, e.g., Ransom v. State, 601 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Baranko v. State, 516 So. 2d 332, 333 n. 1 (Fla. 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 cour…
-
Summerall v. State, 637 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…mmary denials regarding jail credit issues raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), this court requires the trial court to attach portions of the record which refute the appellant’s allegations. See, e.g., Littlejohn v. State, 616 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order. On remand, if the court again denies relief, it must attach portions of its records which refute the appellant’s allegations.…
-
Haggerty v. State, 632 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ther proceedings.1 Should the trial court on [*669] remand again determine that the motion should be denied, the order of denial must be supported by portions of the record refuting the claim for additional jail time credit. See Littlejohn v. State, 616 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). If the trial court determines that the files before it do not contain documentation that either refutes or substantiates appellant’s claim, then the trial court may deny the motion without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Hayes v. State, 610 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Bell v. State, 610 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)