ROBERT H. FREEMAN, 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 denial of Freeman's motion for additional jail credit, holding that claims requiring factual development beyond the trial court record must be pursued through a Rule 3.850 motion rather than Rule 3.800(a).
A motion for additional jail credit involving facts beyond the trial court's record must be pursued under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, not Rule 3.800(a).
[1] A motion for jail credit involving facts not contained in the trial court record must be raised by sworn motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 rather than…
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 intelligence“If Mr. Freeman is entitled to relief, that relief must be obtained through a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 because it involves facts beyond the trial court's record.”
The court explaining the proper procedural mechanism for Freeman's claim.
Robert H. Freeman sought additional jail credit, claiming entitlement to credit for time served between November 14, 1997, and April 29, 1998, across …
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 Sworn Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s order denying Robert H. Freeman’s motion for additional jail credit, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). If Mr. Freeman is entitled to relief, that relief must be obtained through a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 because it involves facts beyond the trial court’s record. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998).
The trial court’s order claims that Mr. Freeman wants to combine credit from two unrelated eases. From the record, we cannot determine whether that is an accurate factual explanation. Mr. Freeman’s brief contains extensive factual information outside the record suggesting that he is actually entitled to jail credit in both cases for time served between November 14, 1997, and April 29, 1998. The trial court’s record contains the sheriffs certificates prepared pursuant to section 921.161(2), Florida Statutes (1997), and transmitted with Mr. Freeman’s two commitments. Mr. Freeman’s allegations cannot be established merely by reviewing the information in these certificates. Accordingly, this is an issue that he must raise in a sworn motion.
Affirmed. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.