DERRICK R. LANIER, 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 reversed the trial court's summary denial of Lanier's motion for additional jail credit because the record did not conclusively demonstrate he had already received the full credit he claimed.
A trial court's summary denial of a jail credit motion must be reversed when the attached prior order does not account for all claimed incarceration dates and the discrepancy is unexplained.
[1] A trial court's denial of a jail credit motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) must be supported by record evidence that conclusively demonstrates the d…
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 intelligenceLanier sought 404 days of jail credit for two periods of county jail incarceration: September 1, 1989 to April 2, 1990, and February 15, 1992 to Augus…
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 Additional Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Derrick R. Lanier appeals the summary denial of his motion for additional jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Lanier alleges that the court records show on their face that he is entitled to an additional 405 days of jail credit. Specifically, he alleges that he was in county jail between September 1, 1989, and April 2, 1990, and again between February 15, 1992, and August 22, 1992. According to our calculations, this would entitle him to a total of 404 days of credit.
The trial court denied the claim on its merits stating that Lanier had already been awarded credit for this time. The trial court attached a prior order that it asserted had awarded this credit. This prior order did not, however, award Lanier the entire 404 days but instead awarded him only 376 days. It is impossible to determine how the trial court arrived at that figure as nothing in either order suggests that Lanier has inaccurately represented the dates of his incarceration in county jail. Because the attachments to the trial court’s order do not conclusively demonstrate that Lanier has already received the relief he seeks or otherwise refute Lanier’s claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
PATTERSON, C.J., and CAMPBELL and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clayton v. State, 849 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…copies of the information or indictment and judgment and sentence for each conviction, Clayton is entitled to certified copies of such documents free of charge. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 27 app. (2002); § 940.04, Fla. Stat. (2002); Marshall v. State, 759 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Lane v. Gardner, 778 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). However, Clayton is not entitled to copies of the plea agreement form, sentencing guidelines scoresheet form, and sentencing transcripts without charge. See § 940.04; Lane, 77…
-
King v. State, 916 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ies of documents he needs to file an application for clemency. The trial court should have treated Mr. King’s motion as a petition for writ of mandamus. We treat this proceeding as an appeal from the denial of such a petition. See Marshall v. State, 759 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In denying Mr. King’s motion, the post-conviction court did attach to its order copies of the written sentence in circuit court case number 90-04280-X and the written judgment and sentence in circuit court case number 90-04786-…
-
Ramsey v. Fuller, 99 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…re she filed a “sworn motion to compel in the trial court alleging that she was in the process of filing an application for executive clemency” and had repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to obtain certified copies from the clerk. Marshall v. State, 759 So. 2d 717, 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The court noted that the then-current clemency rules required each application to have “attached to it a certified copy of the information or indictment and judgment and sentence for each conviction for which clemency is sou…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence