DAVID J. FORD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, Judge.
This appeal was filed pursuant to Rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, claiming that appellant’s sentence is illegal because he was entitled to additional jail credit time. Pursuant to this court’s remand in Ford v. State, 667 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), for failure to make findings and attach record excerpts, the subsequent order entered by the trial court made extensive findings based on record attachments. After this court’s remand in Ford, a different panel of this court decided the case of Sullivan v. State, 674 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), which was a rule 3.800 appeal on grounds similar to those in the instant case.
The Sullivan court, relying on Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995), affirmed the decision of the trial court. In following Sullivan, we affirm the decision of the trial court in this case and grant the appellant leave to seek 3.850 relief within 30 days following the mandate in this case.
Affirmed.
DELL, J., concurs.
GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.
GLICKSTEIN, Judge,
dissenting.
The present case is significantly distinguishable from Sullivan v. State, 674 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); therefore, that recent decision, in my view, is not a fair basis upon which to affirm.
First, in the present case the motion filed by appellant in the trial court met the formal requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 whereas Sullivan did not.
Second, the state’s response in the present case acknowledges that neither the trial court’s orders nor the record before us justify the trial court’s denial of credit for time served. In fact, to its credit, the state’s response concludes:
WHEREFORE the State respectfully requests that this court permit the trial court to attach the appropriate documentation reflecting dates of arrest, length of time actually detained, and the basis for specific denial of credit, or alternatively, if this court consider this matter as being raised pursuant to rule 3.850, an evidentiary hearing to allow for proper record documentation.
In Sullivan, the only response by the state was at the trial court level; and it asserted appellant there was not entitled to relief.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holloway v. State, 718 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…Louis Holloway appeals the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress, contending that the search of his residence was improper. Because the method used to execute the search warrant was an improper no-knock search in violation of State v. Bamber, 680 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1994), and Craft v. State, 688 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), we reverse Mr. Holloway’s conviction. A warrant was issued to search Mr. Holloway’s residence for cocaine and United States currency. Neither the search warrant nor the supporting…
-
Williams v. Williams, 697 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ward ordering the husband to make minimal payments each month to wife’s counsel. Such minimal installment payments are unreasonable and defeat the purpose of the award. See Urbieta v. Urbieta, 469 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Bleakley v. Bleakley, 680 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). On remand, the court must fashion a more reasonable payment schedule by directing the husband to pay a larger monthly amount or to pay the amount in full. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded with directions.…
-
Bleakley v. Bleakley, 771 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…s opinion. As to all other issues raised on appeal, we find no error or abuse of discretion. WARNER, C.J. and STEVENSON, J„ concur. . The monthly payment was later changed to . $700 after appeal to this court and remand. See Bleakley v. Bleakley, 680 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). . We note that the former wife does not seek any other method of payment.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- Sullivan v. State, 674 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Ford v. State, 667 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)