HENRY SANCHEZ, 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.
Henry Sanchez appeals the dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, arguing he received improper jail credit due to a clerical error in the sheriff's certificate. The court reversed, holding that Sanchez's motion raised a new issue distinct from his prior motion and stated a facially sufficient claim for relief regarding jail credit discrepancies.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that Sanchez's current motion is not successive because it raises a different issue than his prior motion—the current motion addresses a specific error in the sheriff's certificate for case CF98-496A-XX, whereas the prior motion concerned jail credit from an earlier case. Additionally, the motion states a facially sufficient claim for relief because credit time issues are cognizable in rule 3.800 motions when the defendant alleges clerical errors supported by documentary evidence.
[1] A motion to correct illegal sentence is not successive when it raises a different issue than a prior motion, even if both motions are filed under the same rule.
[2] A claim for jail credit is cognizable in a motion to correct illegal sentence when court records affirmatively demonstrate an entitlement to 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“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”
Establishes the standard for when jail credit disputes can be raised in rule 3.800 motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanchez filed a motion to correct his sentence in case CF98-496A-XX, alleging errors in jail credit calculations. He attached sheriff's certificates f…
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 Clerical Error In Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1008] PER CURIAM.
Henry Sanchez appeals the dismissal of his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. The trial court dismissed it as being successive of a prior rule 3.800 motion filed by Sanchez. We disagree with this conclusion and find that Sanchez’s current motion states a facially sufficient claim for relief. We accordingly reverse.
The trial court’s attachments in this case indicate that Sanchez argued in his prior rule 3.800 motion that he was entitled to credit on all of his concurrent sentences equivalent to the greatest amount of presentence time he served in county jail in an earlier case, CF97-06487B. That is not what Sanchez argues in his current motion. In his current motion, Sanchez contends that he did not receive the proper amount of jail credit on his sentence in this case, CF98-496A-XX, due to an error in the sheriffs certificate. This is a different issue than that previously raised, and therefore Sanchez’s motion is not successive of his prior motion. Cf. Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding defendant is not entitled to successive review of “a specific issue” which has already been decided against him).
Moreover, Sanchez’s current motion states a facially sufficient claim for relief. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (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’); Nelson v. State, 720 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding possible clerical error regarding amount of jail time served warranted clarification of sentence under rule 3.800). Sanchez attached to his motion the sheriffs certificates for this case and case CF97-06487B to support his argument that the jail credit he received in this case is erroneous. He points out discrepancies in the dates of incarceration listed in the two certificates. For example, i case number CF97-06487B, the certificate indicates that Sanchez was returned from bond pri-or to trial on January 24, 1998, and released on bond after conviction on March 16, 1998. Yet, in case number CF98-496A-XX, the certificate shows that he was released on bond prior to trial on January 24, 1998, returned from bond pri-or to trial on March 11, 1998, and then released on bond after conviction on March 16, 1998.
It appears that at least one of these certificates contains erroneous information as to Sanchez’s jail time. We accordingly reverse the trial court’s order dismissing Sanchez’s motion and remand for further consideration of the jail credit issue.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. State, 846 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…tion seeking jail credit in the present cases. In its order, the trial court partially granted the motion but did not address the specific issue raised herein. Therefore, Hunter’s present motion should not be deemed successive. See Sanchez v. State, 745 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider Hunter’s claim pursuant to rule 3.800(a). Reversed and remanded. DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Olson Joseph v. State, 16 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ate, 692 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The defendant also appears to allege that the jailer’s certificate under subsection 921.161(2), Florida Statutes, was incorrect. That claim is also cognizable in a Rule 3.800(a) motion. Sanchez v. State, 745 So. 2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Nelson v. State, 720 So. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Where a claim of this type has been summarily denied, on appeal this court must reverse “unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no…
-
Standford v. State, 754 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…. In support of this conclusion, the trial court attached the order denying Stand-ford’s earlier rule 3.850 motion. This order does not, however, conclusively demonstrate that this specific issue was raised in the prior motion. See Sanchez v. State, 745 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that an order which dismissed a rule 3.800 motion as successive had to be reversed where the prior motion did not raise the same specific issue). Assuming that Standford’s claim is facially sufficient, this alone would re…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Wilson v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Nelson v. State, 720 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)