EDWARD A. COLUMBRO, 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 a Rule 3.800(a) motion is not the proper vehicle for claims seeking credit for time served in a drug treatment program, as such claims raise factual issues requiring an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A Rule 3.800(a) motion is cognizable for credit for time served issues when court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief.
[2] Claims for credit based on custodial in-patient treatment are unsuited for a Rule 3.800 motion.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward A. Columbro appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion, asserting he was not given credit for time spent in an inpatient drug prog…
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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1209] GRIFFIN, J.
Edward A. Columbro [“Columbro”], appeals the summary denial' of his Rule 3.800(a) motion. Columbro was sentenced in October or November of 1999 to 37.8 months in the Department of Corrections and alleges he was not given credit for time served in an inpatient drug program. Columbro asserts that he was an inpatient resident at Operation PAR, a drug treatment facility, from December 15, 1998 to April 9, 1999 pursuant to court order. He claims that the term served in the program amounted to a significant and coercive derivation of liberty. Attachments from the treatment center confirm defendant was admitted under a court order to residential treatment on December 15, 1998 and released on April 9, 1999.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion, finding that the record was insufficient to establish that defendant would be entitled to credit. We agree that defendant’s motion was properly denied. In State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998), the Florida Supreme Court held that credit issues are cognizable in a Rule 3.800(a) 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 1999). In the present case, defendant is seeking credit for time served in a drug treatment program which he claims was as coercive and restrictive as jail. This claim raises questions of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing and must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion. Whitehead v. State, 677 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). See also Kamerman v. State, 765 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Williams v. State, 711 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Whitehead v. State, 677 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Williams v. State, 711 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Nowell v. State, 742 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Kamerman v. State, 765 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- LEE v. State, 754 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Tranquille v. State, 747 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)