GARY A. MOORE, 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.
Moore appealed a summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail time credit for time served on a collateral conviction. The trial court rejected the motion as procedurally improper, but the appellate court reversed, holding that time-served credit claims are properly brought under Rule 3.800(a) and need not be accompanied by attached record excerpts.
Time-served credit claims may properly be brought under Rule 3.800(a) following State v. Mancino. Criminal defendants need not attach portions of the record to their Rule 3.800(a) motions; instead, the burden is on trial courts to attach record portions to summary denial orders explaining why relief is not warranted.
[1] A motion challenging the failure to award credit for time served on a criminal sentence may be raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[2] A criminal defendant is not required to attach portions of the record to a Rule 3.800(a) motion to adequately state grounds for relief.
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“if the record reflects that a defendant has served time prior to sentencing in the charge for which he was tried and convicted, and [receives] a sentence that does not properly credit the defendant with time served, then that sentence may be challenged under rule 3.800”
Establishes that time-served credit claims are properly cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) rather than requiring Rule 3.850
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail time credit against his sentence for time served on a collateral conviction. He alleged a p…
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
Moore appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He sought to have additional jail time credited against his sentence for time served on a collateral conviction. The trial court did not consider the merits of the motion because it ruled that Moore had to bring his claim pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998), the court ruled that failure to award credit for time served on a criminal sentence may be raised in a Rule 3.800(a) motion. Acknowledging this recent case, the state argues Moore is not entitled to relief under Mancino because he failed to attach record support for his claim to his motion. In this proceeding, Moore alleged a prima facie case entitling him to additional credit for time served, but he did not attach any part of the record.
The court said in Mancino, “[I]f the record reflects that a defendant has served time prior to sentencing in the charge for which he was tried and convicted, and [receives] a sentence that does not properly credit the defendant with time served, then that sentence may be challenged under rule 3.800.” 714 So. 2d at 433. Resolving a conflict in the district courts, the court ruled that henceforward, time served is not to be treated as a disputed issue of fact which requires an evidentiary hearing, and thus, such claims may appropriately be brought pursuant to rule 3.800 rather than rule 3.850. It did not deal with whether a criminal defendant had to attach portions of the record to adequately state grounds for relief.
Cases construing Rule 3.800(a) do not impose on criminal defendants the necessity to attach portions of the record supporting their claims for relief. Rather, the burden is placed on trial courts who summarily deny relief sufficiently pled for by convicted criminal defendants to attach portions of the record which establish why the defendant is not entitled to the relief being sought
In Hidalgo v. State, 729 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), the Third District held that in considering whether a defendant was entitled to additional jail time pursuant to a rule 3.800(a) motion the trial court could consult jail records, even though they had not been incorporated in the court file. In a rule 3.800(a) summary denial case, like ones brought pursuant to rule 3.850, records showing the criminal defendant is not entitled to the relief requested should be attached to the order denying relief.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court should consider Moore’s motion on its merits. If it decides to deny the relief requested, it should attach to its denial portions of the record showing Moore is not entitled to the relief requested.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
COBB, J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, J., dissents without opinion.
. Bunch v. State, 622 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Friss v. State, 881 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…THOMPSON, J. Friss filed a 3.800(a) motion requesting that he be given credit for time served in county jail. The trial court denied his motion, but did not attach any documentation conclusively refuting his claim. In Moore v. State, 741 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), this court held that where a defendant alleges a prima facie entitlement to additional credit, Rule 3.800(a) is an available remedy. It is not the defendant’s burden to attach portions of the record showing entitlement to relief…
-
Wells v. State, 751 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…sentence, we must reverse the order, and remand for attachment of documentation evidencing appellant’s waiver of entitlement to credit for time previously served in connection with this conviction, or for an award of such credit. See Moore v. State, 741 So. 2d 577, 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to correct sentence is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. ERVIN, J., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, CONCUR.…
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…l by the trial court, but also attachments of portions of the record sufficient to support the denial. The rule places on the trial court the obligation to attach sufficient portions of the record to refute the defendant’s claim. See Moore v. State, 741 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Bunch v. State, 622 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the purpose of allowing the trial court to attach sufficient portions of the record to refute Brown’s claim for jail time credit. Should…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Hidalgo v. State, 729 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Bunch v. State, 622 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)