HUGHES ANDREW ALEXANDER, 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 a motion to correct an illegal sentence requires the attachment of record portions refuting the allegations if denied, or an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant sought additional jail credit via a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court summarily denied the motion without attaching rec…
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 Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hughes Alexander appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Alexander raises four grounds within his motion, however, only the issue concerning jail credit possibly may be meritorious.
In his sworn motion, Alexander claims he is entitled to 119 additional days of jail credit. While the allegations appear to be facially sufficient, neither Alexander, nor the court attach portions of the record to support their position.
We subscribe to the attachment requirement with respect to rule 3.800(a) proceedings. See Littlejohn v. State, 616 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse the order of denial as to the issue of jail credit and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again denies the request for additional jail credit, it must attach those portions of the record that refute Alexander’s allegations; or it shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter. In all other respects the order denying the motion is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities 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)