RICHARD L. VOWELL, 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 reversed the trial court's summary denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence for failure to attach record portions establishing procedural bar, requiring the trial court on remand to provide documentary support for any future denial.
A trial court denying a Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence must attach portions of the record refuting the appellant's allegations if it again denies relief on remand.
[1] A trial court denying a Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence must attach portions of the record refuting the appellant's allegations to support a finding t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVowell sought 1076 days' credit for pre-sentencing jail time in two circuit court cases based on Tripp v. State, claiming entitlement to such credit. …
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 Correction Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Richard L. Vowell appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Crirni-nal Procedure 3.800(a). Mr. Vowell claims he should receive 1076 days’ credit for the time he spent in jail prior to sentencing in circuit court case numbers 91-3822 and 91-4058. His claim is based on Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993). See also Cook v. State, 645 So. 2d 436 (Fla.1994). The trial court denied Mr. Vowell’s motion as successive.
Depending on the circumstances, a motion seeking credit for prior incarceration may be filed either under rule 3.800(a) or 3.850(b). Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600 (Fla.2d DCA 1993). Rule 3.800 does not contain a provision comparable to rule 3.850(f) barring successive motions, and a truly illegal sentence can be corrected at any time. Nevertheless, under some circumstances, a repetitive rule 3.800(a) motion may be proeedurally barred. In this case, we are unable to confirm that the motion is proeedurally barred because the trial court failed to attach to its order portions of the record to establish this fact. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order. On remand, if the court again denies relief, it must attach portions of its records that refute the appellant’s allegations. See Summerall v. State, 637 So. 2d 370 (Fla.2d DCA 1994).
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)
- Cook v. State, 645 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1994)
- Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Summerall v. State, 637 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)