ROBERT HENRY COLEMAN, JR., 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.
Robert Coleman appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming entitlement to additional presentence jail time credits. The appellate court reverses and remands for the trial court to determine whether Coleman is entitled to the credits or whether the underlying sheriff's log contains a clerical error.
The court held that jail credit claims are cognizable in proceedings to correct illegal sentences pursuant to State v. Mancino, and reversed the trial court's denial because the documents presented, including the sheriff's log, represent 'court records [which] demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief,' even though they contain possible clerical errors requiring clarification.
[1] A claim for jail credit is cognizable in a proceeding to correct an illegal sentence.
[2] A trial court's order denying a motion for jail credit must be supported by documentation that conclusively refutes the defendant's allegations.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“this claim is cognizable in a proceeding to correct an illegal sentence”
Establishes that the court recognized jail credit claims can be raised under Rule 3.800(a) as illegal sentence corrections, following State v. Mancino.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceColeman filed a motion seeking additional jail credit, claiming 313 additional days of presentence confinement. The trial court denied the motion and …
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 Motion For Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert H. Coleman contests the trial court’s denial of his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The supreme court has recently resolved a conflict among the districts and held that this claim is cognizable in a proceeding to correct an illegal sentence. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998). We reverse.
In its order denying Coleman’s motion, the trial court appended a court progress report which verifies some of the jail credit awarded to Coleman, but does not substantiate, for example, any release date for the time spent in jail “serving specified residency sentence” commencing March 16, 1992, which the trial court’s order identifies as July 19, 1992. Attached to Coleman’s motion is a document apparently produced by the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office entitled “State Credit Time Log” which solves the riddle of the 313 days’ additional credit which Coleman claims is his entitlement. It reflects the days awarded to him at the time of his sentencing and those relied upon in the trial court’s order in the proceeding now under review. The total number of days’ credit in this log, 198, is properly calculated if one presumes that the entry of the date February 23,1993, should in fact read February 23, 1994; the supporting documentation from the trial court leads inescapably to the conclusion that the log contains a crucial clerical error. Coleman’s attempt to exploit this scrivener’s error discloses the unlikely scenario that he was confined for about eleven months awaiting a violation hearing, only to be released fewer than thirty days before his revocation and commitment to prison for twenty years. The court progress report, while inadequate to chronicle all his jail credit, casts grave doubts on the reliability of this allegation and the jail log.
We are confident from our analysis of these documents that Coleman has attempted to turn the slip of a sheriff’s pen to his advantage, and perhaps has placed himself in jeopardy of prosecution by swearing to facts to support his claim. Nonetheless, the documents relied upon by the trial court do not conclusively refute Coleman’s allegations, and the sheriffs log represents “court records [which] demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief,” Mancino, 714 So. 2d at 433. Accordingly, remand will be necessary either to award Coleman the credit he demands or to verify what appears to be a clerical error upon which Coleman is evidently hoping to capitalize.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nelson v. State, 720 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ved. While it is possible that there is a clerical error in this document, as it stands, the record does not conclusively refute Nelson’s allegation that he has not received proper jail time credit. This case is somewhat similar to Coleman v. State, 714 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), in which the court identified what may have been a crucial clerical error, but remanded because the record did not conclusively refute the appellant’s allegation. Although Nelson did not cite rule 3.800(a) in his motion, “[t]he…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)