DAVID J. FORD, 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.
David Ford appealed the denial of his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence, challenging the trial court's calculation of jail credit as 172 days. The Fourth District reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court must attach record portions to support summary denial of a facially sufficient Rule 3.800 motion, and that successive 3.800 motions are not barred by res judicata when an illegal sentence is involved.
A trial court must attach portions of the record sufficient to refute the allegations in a facially sufficient Rule 3.800 motion in order to support a summary denial. Successive Rule 3.800 motions are not barred by res judicata because an illegal sentence can be corrected at any time. Ford was entitled to credit for time spent in jail awaiting disposition for the escape plus previously served jail time, but not for time during his escape when he was not in custody.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800 is a proper vehicle for seeking jail credit.
[2] A trial court must attach record portions sufficient to refute a facially sufficient motion to correct an illegal sentence to support a summary denial.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“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”
Establishes the procedural requirement that summary denial of a Rule 3.800 motion requires supporting documentation from the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFord filed a Rule 3.800 motion claiming the trial court erred in calculating his jail credit at 172 days. The trial court summarily denied the motion …
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 Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
Defendant appeals the denial of his 3.800 motion to correct illegal sentence based on a claim that the trial court erred in calculating the credit for time served to be 172 days. Rule 3.800 is a proper vehicle for seeking jail credit. See Fountain v. State, 660 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). 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. As to this second motion, the state argued to the trial court that defendant’s motion was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the trial court agreed. However, the state now acknowledges that because an illegal sentence can be corrected at any time, a successive motion was not barred. See Anderson v. State, 584 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
In this case, defendant would be entitled to credit for time spent in jail awaiting disposition for the escape in addition to the credit for the time he previously spent in jail. He would not, however, be entitled to credit for the time he was not in custody due to escape because when a prisoner escapes, his sentence is tolled. See Adams v. Wain wright, 275 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1973); Hopping v. State, 650 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
If upon remand the trial court determines that the files before it do not contain documentation that either refutes or substantiates defendant’s claim, the trial court should note the absence of any information in its order.1 See Thomas. Moreover, in the absence of record documentation that would refute the claim, the denial of the 3.800 motion would be without prejudice to defendant’s right to file a timely sworn motion for post-conviction relief on the same grounds, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Haggerty. At the present time there is no provision for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to rule 3.800. See State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995); Sullo v. State, 663 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Fountain. Therefore, if the record offers no indication as to the correctness of the credit for time served, the validity of defendant’s contentions could only be determined after an evidentiary hearing following a 3.850 motion.
GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur. . It would facilitate appellate review if trial courts would note the absence of any documentation refuting or substantiating the defendant’s claim in orders denying a 3.800 motion without attachments.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)…2d 521 (Fla.1993)). Application of either res judicata or collateral estoppel to rule 3.800 proceedings can also frustrate pro se litigants whose meritorious claims have been previously derailed on procedural grounds. For example, in Ford v. State, 667 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the trial court denied, on res judicata grounds, a successive rule 3.800(a) motion seeking presentence jail credit after the appeal of the denial of the previous motion was dismissed as untimely. To its credit, the State acknowl…
-
Sullivan v. State, 674 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…e statutory maximum. Based on Davis, appellant could not obtain relief under Rule 3.800(a).1 We acknowledge that both our court and others since Davis have continued to consider Rule 3.800 motions based upon improper jail credits. See Ford v. State, 667 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Fountain v. State, 660 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Nichols v. State, 668 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We therefore certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: DOES STATE V DAVIS, 661 S0.2D 1193 (FLA.1995…
-
Holland v. State, 672 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…nder these circumstances, we must vacate. In so doing, we note that, if the sentences exceed the statutory maximum, then they are illegal, entitling the defendant to relief at any time, even if the motion seeking relief is successive. Ford v. State, 667 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The order of the trial court is vacated and this matter remanded with instructions that the trial court attach the entire judgments and corresponding sentences to its order denying relief, or, in the alternative, correct the de…
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
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Hopping v. State, 650 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- 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)
- Adams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 275 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1973)
- Fountain v. State, 660 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Anderson v. State, 584 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Haggerty v. State, 632 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Sullo v. State, 663 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)