JEFFREY LYNN ANDERSON, 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.
Jeffrey Anderson appealed the denial of his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence, claiming he did not receive all credit for time served in county jail before sentencing and that he did not receive a negotiated plea bargain sentence. The court reversed and remanded on the jail-credit issue but affirmed on the plea-bargain claim while noting Anderson could pursue that issue via a different motion.
The jail-credit claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800 proceeding and is facially sufficient because the judgment and sentence do not conclusively refute that Anderson is entitled to additional credit. The plea-bargain claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.800 proceeding, but Anderson may pursue it through a rule 3.850 motion to withdraw his plea.
[1] A claim for additional credit for time served is cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800.
[2] A judgment and sentence document verifying the credit for time served that a defendant was actually given does not conclusively refute a claim that the defendant was enti…
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“Such a claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800 proceeding and is facially sufficient.”
Establishes that jail-credit claims are properly raised under rule 3.800 and satisfy the facial sufficiency requirement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnderson was sentenced and filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. He alleged that court records…
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 Cognizable Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Anderson appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Anderson alleges that the court records show that he did not receive all of the credit for time served in county jail prior to his sentencing to which he was entitled. Such a claipi is cognizable in a rule 3.800 proceeding and is facially sufficient. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998).
Moreover, Anderson’s claim is not conclusively refuted by the judgment and sentence that the trial court attached to its order. This document only verifies the credit Anderson was actually given and does not refute his claim that he was entitled .to more.
Therefore, we reverse and remand. On remand the, trial court shall review the relevant court records, including the .defendant’s jail card, in order to determine if Anderson is in fact entitled to additional credit. See Hidalgo v. State, 729 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
Anderson also alleges that he entered a negotiated plea in exchange for a specific sentence but did not receive that sentence. The trial court denied this claim, finding that it was refuted by the record. Although we affirm on this point because this claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.800 proceeding, we note that the record provided to this court does not refute Anderson’s allegation. This affir-mance is without prejudice to Anderson raising this claim in a motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to rule 3.850. See, e.g., Humphries v. State, 563 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that defendant may be entitled to withdraw his plea if he does not receive the plea bargain to which he specifically agreed). Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and STRINGER, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Hidalgo v. State, 729 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Humphries v. State, 563 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)