CHARLES LOWE A/K/A LEON LOWE, 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 in denying a motion for additional jail credit based on res judicata when the motion raised a different claim than a prior motion.
Appellant filed a motion for jail credit, which the trial court denied based on res judicata, believing it raised the same issue as a prior motion. Th…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*892] PER CURIAM.
The appellant seeks review of the order denying his motion for additional jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On March 7, 1997, the appellant filed a motion for modification of his prison sentences pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). Part of the relief he sought was credit for the time he had spent on community control. The trial court denied the motion.
On April 7,1997, the appellant filed a second motion in which he alleged that he had not been given full credit for specifically identifiable amounts of time he had spent incarcerated in the county jail awaiting the final disposition of his criminal charges. The trial court denied the motion on the basis of res judicata because it viewed the motion as raising the same issue which had previously been addressed in the first motion. Our examination of each motion leads us to conclude that they relate to entirely different claims for relief. Accordingly, because the second motion seeking additional jail credit was facially sufficient and because the trial court did not attach to its order any attachments justifying denial, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings and direct that on remand the trial court reconsider the merits of the second motion. See Becton v. State, 668 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). If it again denies the motion, the trial court must attach to its order those documents that conclusively refute the appellant’s claim for additional jail credit. Id.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. State, 914 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…, and says nothing about Howard’s entitlement to jail credit in cases CRC98-05199CFANO, CRC98-21875CFANO, and CRC99-03598CFANO prior to October 2004. Therefore, Howard’s June 23, 2005, motion is not barred on res judicata grounds. See Lowe v. State, 696 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Because Howard’s June 23, 2005, motion was facially sufficient and because the postconviction court did not attach to its order any attachments justifying denial, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the po…
Authorities Cited
- Becton v. State, 668 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)