ALGER JONES, 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 affirmed the summary denial of Jones' motion to correct an illegal sentence under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) because the motion was facially insufficient under the pleading requirements established in Mancino and Baker, though without prejudice to refiling a properly pleaded motion.
A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) claiming insufficient jail time credit must affirmatively allege how and where the record demonstrates entitlement to relief.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Fla. …
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 intelligenceAlger Jones filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence claiming he had not been awarded all jail time credit to which he was entitled.…
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 Facial Insufficiency Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alger Jones appeals the summary denial of this motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm but write to address Jones’ claim that he has not been awarded all of the jail time credit to which he is entitled. Jones’ motion is facially insufficient under State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998) (holding that credit time issues are cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief); and Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that the allegations required by Mancino would have to address at a minimum how and where the record demonstrated an entitlement to relief). We, therefore, affirm its denial, although we disagree with the grounds on which the trial court denied Jones’ motion. We note that the record attachments do not refute Jones’ claim nor is his claim barred by his previous rule 3.850 motion, as that motion raised a different legal issue regarding credit time. This affir-mance is without prejudice to Jones filing a motion under rule 3.800 which meets the pleading requirements of Mancino and Baker if he is able to do so.
Affirmed.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)