DAVID C. LEE, 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.
David Lee appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence by seeking jail-time credit. The court affirmed the denial because the motion failed to comply with pleading requirements and was time-barred, but reversed to allow Lee to file a properly pleaded motion without prejudice.
The trial court properly denied the motion as legally insufficient and time-barred. However, the denial should have been without prejudice to allow Lee to file a new motion that cures the pleading deficiency by affirmatively stating where in the record the information concerning jail service can be found and how the record demonstrates entitlement to the credit sought.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) must affirmatively allege that court records demonstrate entitlement to relief a…
[2] A motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 must be filed within the two-year deadline provided by the rule.
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“Contrary to the pleading requirements of State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998) and Toro v. State, 719 So.2d 947, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), Appellant's motion did not affirmatively allege that the court records demonstrate entitlement to relief or identify where in the record that information could be located.”
Establishes the pleading requirements that Lee's motion failed to satisfy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Lee filed a sworn motion under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) seeking to correct his sentence by awarding additional time served i…
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 Pleading Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David Lee appeals the denial of his sworn motion made pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to correct an illegal sentence by awarding additional time served in jail as credit against his sentence. Contrary to the pleading requirements of State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998) and Toro v. State, 719 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), Appellant’s motion did not affirmatively allege that the court records demonstrate entitlement to relief or identify where in the record that information could be located. Furthermore, it was not filed within the two year deadline to seek post conviction relief under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b). The trial court quite properly denied the motion as legally insufficient and time-barred.
In conformance with our decisions in Quartucci v. State, 736 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), Daily v. State, 750 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) and Carridine v. State, 741 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the denial, however, should have been without prejudice to Appellant to file a new motion correcting the pleading deficiency. Accordingly, our affirmance is without prejudice to file a rule 3.800(a) motion which affirmatively states where in the record the information concerning his jail service can be found and how the record demonstrates his entitlement to the additional days of jail time credit sought.
We also wish to clarify certain language appearing in our earlier decision Quartucci v. State, 736 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), which admittedly conflicts with the language appearing in Carridine v. State, 741 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In Quartucci, we said:
Any rule 3.850 motion must be filed within the two-year time period provided by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b) or within thirty days of the issuance of this court’s mandate in the instant case, whichever is later. In Quartucci, we permitted appellant an additional thirty days from our mandate to file a 3.850 motion in the event his two year time limit to file a 3.850 motion expired before our mandate issued. As such, our decision regarding the time deadline for filing a 3.850 motion was limited to instances where a 3.800(a) motion has been filed at a time when a rule 3.850 motion could also have been timely filed, and should not be construed as otherwise enlarging the two year deadline for filing a 3.850 motion because a 3.800(a) motion has been denied, appealed and affirmed. We wish to make clear that motions made pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 must be filed within the time permitted under that rule.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
GUNTHER, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woody v. State, 993 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…1999). Because the time for filing a rule 3.850 motion expired while the instant motion was pending below, any such rule 3.850 motion must be filed within thirty days of the date of the mandate to be issued in this case. See generally Lee v. State, 754 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (explaining that allowing thirty days after mandate for filing a rule 3.850 motion after expiration of two-year time limit is appropriate when a rule 3.800(a) motion has been filed at a time when a rule 3.850 motion also could ha…
-
Donaldson v. State, 760 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed without prejudice to Robert A. Donaldson’s ability to file a timely and proper motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Platt v. State, 664 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Lee v. State, 754 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). THREADGILL, A.C.J., and BLUE and GREEN, JJ., Concur.…
-
Columbro v. State, 777 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…) motion when the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief. Defendant has made no such allegation in this case and, in fact, it appears that the attachments provided were not part of the court record. See, e.g., Lee v. State, 754 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Tranquille v. State, 747 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We also observe that Rule 3.800 is particularly unsuited to claims for credit based on custodial in-patient treatment. See Nowell v. State, 742 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Hardy v. Hon. Taylor Douglas, 719 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Daily v. State, 750 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Quartucci v. State, 736 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Carridine v. State, 741 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Rojas v. City OF Coral Gables, 741 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)