GEORGE WHITAKER, 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 affirmed the denial of a motion for correction of sentence, finding that the motion was not facially sufficient because it lacked specific dates and clarity regarding the sentences for which jail-time credit was sought. The affirmance is without prejudice, allowing the appellant to refile a more specific motion.
No, the motion was not facially sufficient because it failed to allege the specific dates for which credit was claimed and did not clearly state against which sentences the credit was sought.
[1] A motion for correction of sentence for jail-time credit is not facially sufficient if it fails to allege the specific dates for which credit is claimed and does not clar…
[2] A facially sufficient motion for correction of sentence requires the movant to affirmatively allege that court records demonstrate on their face the movant's entitlement…
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 intelligence“Despite the state’s concession, in response to this court’s order to show cause, that the case should be remanded for the attachment of files and records showing Appellant is not entitled to relief, we determine that because Appellant’s motion failed to allege the dates for which credit was claimed and did not make it clear against which of these sentences he sought the credit, his motion was not facially sufficient.”
This quote establishes the court's primary reason for affirming the denial, focusing on the insufficiency of the appellant's motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Whitaker appealed the summary denial of his motion for correction of sentence seeking jail-time credit. The trial court did not provide a reaso…
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 Facially Sufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
George Whitaker (Appellant) appeals an order summarily denying his motion for correction of sentence for jail-time credit, in which the trial court did not give a reason for the denial or attach any portions of the record to refute the allegations.
Despite the state’s concession, in response to this court’s order to show cause, that the case should be remanded for the attachment of files and records showing Appellant is not entitled to relief, we determine that because Appellant’s motion failed to allege the dates for which credit was claimed and did not make it clear against which of these sentences he sought the credit, his motion was not facially sufficient. See Haggerty v. State, 632 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Our affirmance is without prejudice to his filing a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998) (requiring movant affirmatively to allege that court records demonstrate on their face movant’s entitlement to relief); Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (interpreting requirement to mean more than eonclusory allegations).
Compare Thomas, 634 So. 2d at 177 (“Appellant in this case alleged the specific dates and periods of time involved in his claims for jail-time credit, thereby suggesting the issue is determinable by a review of the circuit court records.”).
Therefore, we affirm without prejudice to appellant’s filing a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion for the same relief. If he files one and the trial court determines that the court files do not contain documentation that either refutes or substantiates Appellant’s claim, then the trial court’s denial should be without prejudice to Appellant’s right to file a rule 3.850 motion for postcon-viction relief raising the same ground, see Haggerty, 632 So. 2d at 669, unless that relief was already time-barred at the time he filed the instant motion.
POLEN, FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aller v. State, 792 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…cedure 3.800, requesting the award of additional jail credit toward his sentence and citing the pertinent arrest dates for the claim and other related information. The court erred in denying the claim as facially insufficient. See Whitaker v. State, 729 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to determine the proper amount of jail credit to which appellant is entitled. In addition, in light of the state’s argument in…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Williamson v. Penni Lane Williamson, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Am. Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Gerda Jackson, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Haggerty v. State, 632 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)