JOSEPH WITCHARD, 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's summary denial of the motion for postconviction relief was improper because the record attachments did not conclusively refute the defendant's allegations regarding jail credit.
[1] A defendant is entitled to jail credit for time spent in federal custody on a concurrent sentence if the allegations, if true, would entitle them to relief.
[2] Attachments to a summary denial of postconviction relief must conclusively refute the defendant's allegations to be sufficient.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Witchard appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, claiming entitlement to jail credit for time spent in federal cus…
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 Summary Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Witchard appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Witchard claims that he is entitled to jail credit for the time that he spent in federal custody on a concurrent sentence. Although the trial court did attach portions of the record to its order summarily denying the motion, those attachments do not conclusively refute Witchard’s allegations.
The record attachments establish that the sentence is to run concurrently with federal prison time; that the trial court issued a capias on November 8, 1996; and that as of October 17, 1996, the U.S. Marshals Service had no state detainer on file for Witchard. Witchard’s sworn allegations indicate that he was arrested on the state charges on June 13, 1996; arrested on the federal charges on September 13, 1996; sentenced on the federal charges on November 15,1996; and granted a revocation of his bond for the state case on November 28, 1996, so that he could receive jail credit for his incarceration on the concurrent federal sentence.
If true, Witchard’s allegations may entitle him to relief. See Price v. State, 598 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (because the sentences imposed were concurrent, the defendant is entitled to credit from the time he was arrested on the Volusia County charges for the time spent in jail in Alachua County). Although the attachments to the order show that Witchard is not entitled to jail credit prior to October 18, 1996, he is requesting jail credit beginning in November 1996. Accordingly, we reverse the order of denial and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court should also consider Witchard’s supplemental motion for jail credit. If the trial court again denies the request for additional jail credit, it must attach portions of the record conclusively showing that Witchard is entitled to no relief.
If Witchard seeks review of a subsequent order of the trial court, he must do so within thirty days of its rendition.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and QUINCE and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. State, 805 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…hold. He will nevertheless be entitled to credit against his state sentence for the entire period unless the state sentence was imposed consecutively to a federal sentence against which credit for this time was awarded. See, e.g., Witchard v. State, 714 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that defendant would be entitled to credit against his concurrent state sentence for time spent in federal prison while he was simultaneously serving a federal sentence and being detained pretrial on the open state charge…
Authorities Cited
- Price v. State, 598 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)