MICHAEL A. HAGGERTY, 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.
Michael Haggerty appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for jail time credit under Florida Rule 3.800(a). The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that trial courts must attach supporting portions of the record to orders summarily denying such motions in order to properly refute facially sufficient claims.
The trial court must attach portions of the record sufficient to refute allegations of a facially sufficient motion to correct an illegal sentence when denying a rule 3.800(a) motion. If the trial court lacks documentation to either refute or substantiate the claim, it may deny the motion without prejudice to the appellant's right to file a sworn motion for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a motion for jail credit must be reversed on appeal unless the post-conviction record conclusively shows the appellant is entitled to no…
[2] A trial court order denying a motion for jail credit is insufficient when it fails to attach documentation that refutes the defendant's claims or establishes how credit c…
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“the trial court must attach portions of the record sufficient to refute allegations of a facially sufficient motion to correct an illegal sentence”
Establishes the core holding requiring trial courts to support denials of rule 3.800(a) motions with attached record portions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHaggerty filed a motion for jail time credit under rule 3.800(a). The trial court denied the motion with a brief statement that 'The calculation is co…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.020(G) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In denying appellant’s motion for jail time credit filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), the trial court stated “The calculation is correct. The remaining time was served pursuant to a Palm Beach County sentence on a different charge.” The trial court did not attach any supporting portions of the record to the order. Because we adopt the requirement on orders summarily denying relief on rule 3.800(a) motions, that the trial court must attach portions of the record sufficient to refute allegations of a facially sufficient motion to correct an illegal sentence, see Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), we reverse and remand for further proceedings.1 Should the trial court on 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 sworn motion for post-conviction relief on the same ground pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Id. at 130, citing Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
DELL, C.J., and STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur. . Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g) was recently amended to allow for appeals from Rule 3.800(a) orders in the same summary fashion as is allowed from Rule 3.850. Although Rule 3.800(a) was not amended to require the same attachment of record support for the order so that the expedited review process many be accomplished, our adoption of the record requirement is essential to the simplified review under the rule as amended.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Houston v. State, 635 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. We reverse and remand with directions that the trial court either conduct an eviden-tiary hearing or provide attachments to any order of denial demonstrating that appellant’s claim is without merit. See Haggerty v. State, 632 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.…
-
Ford v. State, 667 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…The state concedes and we agree that because defendant’s motion was facially sufficient, the trial court must attach portions of the record sufficient to refate the allegations in order to support its summary denial. See Fountain; Haggerty v. State, 632 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). This appeal is defendant’s second appeal from denial of a 3.800 motion. Defendant’s initial appeal was dismissed as untimely and thus there was no adjudication on the merits.…
-
Holmes v. State, 650 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…State, 559 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). . When the trial court summarily denies a facially valid motion to correct an illegal sentence it shall attach those parts of the record which clearly refute defendant's allegations. See Haggerty v. State, 632 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The trial court properly attached to its order those portions of the record which demonstrate that defendant waived both his right to appeal and his right to sentencing within the guidelines and that he was barred from arguing t…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Am. Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Gerda Jackson, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Littlejohn v. State, 616 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)