FRANK PRICE, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of jail credit motion for one case number because trial court failed to address defendant's specific claim regarding pre-sentence jail time credit in that case, while affirming denial as to other previously-decided case numbers.
A trial court's order denying jail credit must specifically address and refute a defendant's claim regarding pre-sentence jail time rather than summarily denying it as successive.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a successive motion for jail credit as barred by the successive motion doctrine is reversible error when the court fails to address and…
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 intelligenceFrank Price filed a motion for jail credit in multiple cases; the trial court denied an initial motion in August 1996 without appeal, then denied a se…
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 Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Frank Price appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. We reverse because the trial court failed to address and refute Price’s claim that he was not properly credited with time spent in jail prior to the imposition of his sentence in case number 95-1397. In all other respects the trial court’s order is affirmed.
Price filed a prior motion for jail credit in cases numbered 95-1396, 95-1415, 95-1749 and 95-1697. The trial court denied relief in an order rendered August 6, 1996. Price did not appeal this order. In October 1996 Price filed another motion asking for jail credit for the above case numbers as well as for case number 95-1397. The trial court denied the motion as successive and attached the earlier order denying relief. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 contains no proscription against the filing of successive motions. Barnes v. State, 661 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). However, a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him. Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
We reverse the order denying the motion because it fails to refute Price’s assertion that the trial court neglected to award him the correct county jail credit in case number 95-1397.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, AC.J., and , PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)…dol v. State, 823 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); see also Jenkins v. State, 749 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (noting that a defendant may not raise the same illegal sentencing issue in successive post-conviction motions); Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (noting that rule 3.800 “contains no proscription against the filing of successive motions” but that “a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him”). In barri…
-
Harris v. State, 777 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…7). The doctrine of law of the case prohibits successive review of a specific claim of error that has been raised by the defendant and decided by the appellate court. See Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Although the Fifth District has recently suggested that the law of the case doctrine would not bar reconsideration of some claims under rule 3.800(a), the court limited its opinion to those “exceptional circumstances where relian…
-
Shaw v. State, 780 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…rule 3.800(a) does not prohibit successive motions, as does rule 3.850, a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue that has already been decided. See Fuston v. State, 764 So. 2d 779, 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Burns v. State, 637 So. 2d 937, 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). However, the trial court failed to attach Shaw’s September 16, 1998, motion or the trial court’s order on that motion. When ruling on a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Barnes v. State, 661 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)