HOWARD G. TOOLE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Facially Sufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, C.J.
This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which sought jail-time credit, on the grounds that the motion was successive. Because the prior motion to correct sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800, was not facially sufficient and the trial court’s denial of that motion did not indicate whether it was denied as facially insufficient or on its merits, the trial court’s attachment of that motion and order to its order summarily denying the 3.850 motion does not conclusively demonstrate that the 3.850 motion was successive and that appellant was therefore not entitled to post-conviction relief. The order is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for attachment of portions of the record conclusively demonstrating that appellant is not. entitled to jail credit for any of the time spent in the Okaloosa County Jail after Bay County requested that he be held for violation of probation in this case, or for an evidentiary hearing on the claim for jail-time credit.
BOOTH and WOLF, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
van Thompson v. State, 771 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…sentence in the other case. On direct appeal, the HFO sentences in both cases were vacated for lack of prior qualifying offenses, and the cases were remanded for re-sentencing. See section 775.084(1)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1995); Thompson v. State, 732 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Thompson v. State, 726 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The appellant served approximately four years in prison prior to the September 1999 re-sentencing. In Circuit Court Case No. 95-2472, the trial court re-sentenced the appe…