MARK ALLEN THOMAS, 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 appellate court held that the trial court erred by denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence without attaching record portions refuting the claim.
Appellant sought credit for the entire eighteen-month incarceration portion of his sentence after his probation was revoked. The trial court denied hi…
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 Prison Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mark Allen Thomas appeals the denial of a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence. We reverse and remand for the trial court to attach those portions of the record refuting appellant’s claim.
In February 1990 appellant pled nolo con-tendere to the charge of strong armed robbery. He was sentenced to eighteen months’ incarceration with credit for sixty days’ jail time followed by three years’ probation. His prison sentence began May 30, 1990, and he was released from custody on September 17, 1990. On October 4,1994, appellant’s probation was revoked for a violation of probation and he was sentenced to three and one-half years in prison with credit for 247 days for time served.
Appellant then filed a motion for correction of illegal sentence in which he alleged that the record reflected that he was entitled to credit for the entire eighteen-month inear-cerative portion of his sentence. The trial court denied the motion stating in its order that it had considered both appellant’s motion and the state’s response in reaching its decision.
It is well settled that jail time and prison credit issues may be raised pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Cunningham v. State, 646 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). A legally sufficient claim requires attachment of documents to support a denial of relief. Id.; see also Small v. State, 624 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). The trial court did not attach any documents to the order to conclusively show that appellant was not entitled to the relief he requested. Because the trial court failed to do so, we must reverse the order denying relief and remand to the trial court to attach those portions of the record which refute appellant’s claim.
REVERSED and REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
GUNTHER, C.J., KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Speer v. State, 734 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…attach the pertinent information upon which it relied to deny the motion. This precludes meaningful review by this court. See Thomas v. State, 707 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Corp v. State, 698 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Thomas v. State, 667 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse and remand either for attachment of those portions of the record which conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief, or for further proceedings pursuant to this decision. REVERSED AND RE…
-
Martone v. State, 922 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…the record conclusively refuting appellant’s legally sufficient claim. Goldbach v. State, 906 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Torres v. State, 830 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Johnson v. State, 665 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Thomas v. State, 667 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The state’s attempt to provide such record evidence for the first time in this appeal is improper. Cuevas v. State, 907 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Saunders v. State, 661 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We remand for the…
Authorities Cited
- Hill v. State, 624 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Cunningham v. State, 646 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)