MITCHELL J. PACE, 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 held that while jail credit claims are cognizable under rule 3.800(a), the record must substantiate the claim, and a non-appealable order denying a motion for jail credit was affirmed.
Appellant filed a motion to mitigate sentence, claiming entitlement to additional jail time credit. The trial court summarily denied this motion. The …
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) Motion For Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm Pace’s judgments and sentences and note that during the pendency of the appeal a motion to mitigate sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) was filed within which Pace makes a cursory claim that he is entitled to additional credit for jail time served. Pace’s motion was summarily denied by the trial court, and is a non-appealable order. See Adams v. State, 487 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)(holding that an order denying a motion to correct, reduce or modify a sentence under rule 3.800 is not appealable).
In State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998), the Florida Supreme Court held that jail credit issues are cognizable under rule 3.800(a), determining that “[a] sentence which does not grant proper credit for time served is an illegal sentence which may be corrected at any time.” Id. at 432 (quoting Hopping v. State, 650 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)). Accordingly, Pace’s jail credit claim would be cognizable on direct appeal. See Harriet v. State, 710 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(excepting claims of illegal sentences from rule that sentencing errors must be brought to the attention of the trial court before being raised on appeal).
There is, however, nothing in the record before this court which substantiates Pace’s claim of entitlement to additional credit for jail time served prior to his sentencing. Since Mancino limits the application of rule 3.800(a), in jail credit cases, to those in which the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief, we affirm without prejudice to Pace seeking additional credit by filing a properly pled motion under rule 3.800 or timely motion pursuant to rule 3.850. See Walker v. State, 725 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
AFFIRMED.
DELL, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grant v. State, 864 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…. 2d at 1282. An exception to the general rule exists where both counsel’s deficient performance and the prejudice to the defendant are apparent on the face of the record. See Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So. 2d 1377, 1384 (Fla.1987); Burgess v. State, 776 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We cannot conceive of any strategic or tactical reason for counsel’s decision to request the lesser offense that he did. However, we do not find that the prejudice to Grant appears on the face of the record. To obtain relief du…
-
Davis v. State, 852 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…nsecutive sentences was not the correct solution to the problem. Unfortunately, we are unable to grant Davis the relief that he apparently deserves because an order denying a motion to modify sentence is not an appeal-able order. See Pace v. State, 776 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing Adams v. State, 487 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)). Therefore, although we are constrained to dismiss this appeal, we do so without prejudice to Davis to file an appropriate motion for postconviction relief seeking an a…
-
Gurtram J. Johnson v. State, 795 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…e nor the trial court has adequately refuted this claim. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) does provide a vehicle for claims of erroneous denial of jail time credit. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 432-33 (Fla.1998); Pace v. State, 776 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Appellant has made a sufficient showing of that. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order of summary denial and remand for further consideration of his jail time credit demands in light of this opinion. WARNER, FARMER and…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Dameion Harriel v. State, 710 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Hopping v. State, 650 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Adams v. State, 487 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Nunes v. Kelly, 725 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)