STEVEN NICHOLS, 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 the trial court erred in denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence without attaching records conclusively showing the appellant was entitled to no relief.
The appellant pleaded no contest to attempted capital sexual battery charges and received consecutive sentences with presentence jail time credit. He …
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 Presentence Jail Time Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
[*279] PER CURIAM.
Steven Nichols appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. He challenges the sufficiency of presentence jail time credit he received in this case. We reverse because the trial court did not attach portions of the file and records conclusively showing that the appellant was entitled to no relief.
The appellant entered a plea of no contest to two charges of attempted capital sexual battery. He was sentenced to twenty years on the first count and fifteen years on the second count to be served consecutively. He received 251 days credit for time served on each offense.
The appellant argues that pursuant to his plea agreement and the court’s pronouncements in open court he was entitled to 522 days jail credit because he was continuously incarcerated from December 15, 1990, to May 20, 1992, the date of his adjudication. According to his motion he was in jail in New York on these charges from December 15, 1990, to December 15, 1991, and in Florida from December 15, 1991, to May 20, 1992.
The trial court denied the motion attaching a certified copy of an arrest warrant showing service in Manatee County, Florida, on September 12, 1991. However, this document does not refute the appellant’s allegation that he was promised credit for time served as part of his plea agreement. Because the record does not conclusively establish that the appellant is entitled to no relief, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.
On remand, if the trial court should deny the motion again, it shall attach such portions of the file, sentencing or plea proceedings that conclusively refute the appellant’s allegations.
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, C.J., and BLUE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sullivan v. State, 674 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…hat 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), APPLY TO MOTIONS FILED UNDER RULE 3.800 REQUESTING JAIL CREDIT SO THAT SUCH MOTIONS MAY NOT BE RAISED WHER…
-
Gibbs v. State, 685 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…1136 (Fla.1996). Accordingly, the appellant’s claim would appear to be no longer cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See Sullivan v. State, 674 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); but see Ford v. State, 667 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Nichols v. State, 668 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Because of the apparent confusion over the applicability of rule 3.800(a) to such claims, we certify the following question of great public importance to the supreme court: WHERE THE TRIAL COURT RECORD REVEALS THAT THE TRIAL CO…