DERRICK FARRIOR, 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.
Farrior's motion to correct an illegal sentence was reversed because he presented a facially sufficient claim for jail credit from the date a capias was served, and the trial court failed to attach refuting documents to its denial order.
A trial court's denial of a motion for jail credit under Rule 3.800(a) must be reversed when the defendant presents a facially sufficient claim and the court fails to attach documents refuting the claim.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion for jail credit under Rule 3.800(a) is reversible when the defendant presents a facially sufficient claim and the court fails to attach…
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 intelligenceFarrior was served with a capias for a probation violation on July 10, 1995, and remained in custody until sentencing on January 25, 1996. The trial c…
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 Capias cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Derrick Farrior appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We have consistently held that rule 3.800 is a proper vehicle for raising a credit time issue where jail credit may be determined from the trial court’s records. See Swyck v. State, 693 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, No. 90,358, 699 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. Sept. 5, 1997). Farrior argues that he deserves jail credit from the time the capias was served for his violation of probation in this case. We agree.
Farrior contends he was served with a capias for this charge on July 10, 1995, and remained .in custody until Ms sentencing on January 25,1996. The trial court denied the motion relying on a computer printout from the jail which reflects credit for time spent in jail on this case from November 7, 1995, to the date of his sentencing. Because Farri-or’s claim is facially sufficient and the trial court did not attach to its order any documents refuting the claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Becton v. State, 668 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Saunders v. State, 661 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vanderblomen v. State, 709 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…3 So. 2d 618, 619 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 699 So. 2d 1376 (Fla.1997); see also Mizzell v. State, 702 So. 2d 606, 606 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(noting conflict with this court, and the fourth and fifth districts on this issue); Farrior v. State, 702 So. 2d 567, 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(citing Swyck and reaffirming that “[w]e have consistently held that rule 3.800 is a proper vehicle for raising a credit time issue where jail credit may be determined from the trial court’s records”). The Third District Court…
Authorities Cited
- Becton v. State, 668 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Swyck v. State, 693 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Mickey L. Saunders v. State, 661 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)