WAYLAND LEE WEBB, 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.
Wayland Lee Webb appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming entitlement to additional credit for time served and earned gaintime. The court reverses because the trial court's order denying the motion failed to address Webb's claims with sufficient record support, violating established precedent requiring trial courts to attach portions of the record refuting facially sufficient motions.
The trial court's order denying Webb's motion to correct sentence was improper because it failed to attach portions of the record refuting his specific claims for 313 days credit for time served and 143 days for earned gaintime. Upon remand, the trial court must either provide record support for its denial or note the absence of information regarding credit due for time served.
[1] A trial court must attach portions of the record sufficient to refute the allegations of a facially sufficient motion to correct an illegal sentence.
[2] A trial court's order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence is insufficient if it relies solely on a state response that does not address all of the defendant's…
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“This court has held that the trial court must attach portions of the record sufficient to refute the allegations of a facially sufficient motion to correct illegal sentence.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that trial courts must provide adequate record support when denying sentencing correction motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWebb was sentenced and received 244 days credit for time served and jail credits. He filed a motion to correct his sentence claiming entitlement to an…
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 Gain Time Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wayland Lee Webb appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He claims, in addition to other things, entitlement to 313 days credit for time served and 143 days credit for earned gaintime in addition to the amount awarded by the trial court. The state in its response to the motion to correct sentence accurately noted that appellant was incorrectly claiming credit for the 244 days credit awarded by the trial court and the component parts of the 244 days credit (i.e., 57 days for time served for violation of probation, 75 additional jail credit, and 112 days jail time credit). The state, however, did not address appellant’s claim of entitlement to 313 days credit for time served and 143 days for gain-time earned during that period. The trial court’s order denying the Motion for Correction of Sentence “for the reasons set forth in the State’s response” and attachment of the state’s response was therefore insufficient to refute the motion.
This court has held that the trial court must attach portions of the record sufficient to refute the allegations of a facially sufficient motion to correct illegal sentence. Fann v. State, No. 93-3039, 1994 WL 201455 (Fla. 1st DCA May 25, 1994); Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Jones v. State, 635 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Small v. State, 535 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); see also Haggerty v. State, 632 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Bunch v. State, 622 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Young v. State, 619 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
Accordingly, the order denying appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion is reversed. Upon remand, if the trial court again determines the rule 3.800(a) motion should be denied, the order should be supported by those portions of the record which refute appellant’s claim of entitlement to additional credit of 313 days for the time he served in prison from September 1, 1989 until July 10, 1990 and credit for 143 days for gaintime earned pursuant to section 944.275(3)(b), Florida Statutes. If the circuit court record is silent with regard to credit for time served, the circuit 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. Haggerty v. State, 632 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (order denying the motion should note the absence of any information as to credit due for time served).
ERVIN, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carson v. State, 37 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…motion without any explanation, and the notice of appeal. This Court has long held that the trial court is required to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting facially sufficient claims for relief in rule 3.800(a) motions. Webb v. State, 642 So. 2d 782, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The lack of any record attachments in this case is the sole reason this Court was forced to “expend considerable resources” [*889] to review Appellant’s motion. Without the plea colloquy or a written plea agreement, it is i…
-
Wiggins v. State, 654 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…d runs from the date the detainer was filed. Id. If the trial court on remand cannot resolve this issue from the circuit court records, Wiggins should be directed to file a sworn motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Webb v. State, 642 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. MINER, J., concurs. BENTON, J., concurs in result only.…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Bunch v. State, 622 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Loring Spencer Jones v. State, 635 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Haggerty v. State, 632 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- State v. Brown, 619 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Small v. State, 535 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)