CHARLES CARLOS WILSON, 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.
Wilson appeals the summary denial of his four Rule 3.800(a) motions for correction of sentence, claiming the trial court failed to award proper jail credit due to alleged errors in jail records. The appellate court affirmed the summary denial but found the motions were not barred as successive, holding instead that the factual issues raised require an evidentiary hearing outside Rule 3.800's scope.
The court held that Wilson's motions are not barred under the successiveness doctrine because the trial court never addressed his claim that the jail records were incorrect, merely comparing the jail records with the awarded credit. However, the summary denial is affirmed because Wilson's factual claim about the erroneous arrest date requires an evidentiary hearing and cannot be resolved as a matter of law under Rule 3.800(a). Wilson may raise the jail credit claim in a timely Rule 3.850 motion.
[1] A motion for correction of sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is not successive if it raises a claim that the trial court failed to address a specific factual issue, even if pr…
[2] Motions for correction of sentence under Rule 3.800(a) are limited to sentencing issues that can be resolved as a matter of law without an evidentiary determination.
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“rule 3.800(a) motions should 'be limited to those sentencing issues that can be resolved as a matter of law without an evidentiary determination'”
Establishes the legal standard that Rule 3.800(a) cannot be used for matters requiring factual proof or evidentiary hearings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson was sentenced in trial court case CRC 98-05363CFANO and filed four identical motions for correction of sentence claiming improper jail credit c…
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 Correction Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*327] PER CURIAM.
Charles Carlos Wilson appeals the summary denial of his four motions for correction of sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Wilson asserts in all four motions that the trial court failed to award him the proper amount of jail credit in trial court case number CRC 98-05363CFANO. He claims that this failure was due to an error in the jail records, which he asserts erroneously show that he was arrested on March 31, 1998, instead of on January 16, 1998.
The trial court summarily denied Wilson’s motions on the ground that they were successive of a prior rule 3.800 motion. The trial court’s order attaches the order denying Wilson’s prior motion. The prior order reveals that the trial court merely compared the jail records, which showed the number of days Wilson spent in jail, with the amount of jail time awarded to Wilson on his sentence, and concluded that the two figures matched. It never addressed Wilson’s claim that the jail records were wrong. We accordingly conclude that Wilson’s current claim is not barred under the successiveness doctrine. Cf. Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding defendant is not entitled to successive review under rule 3.800 of “a specific issue” which has already been decided against him).
We nevertheless affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Wilson’s rule 3.800 motion because his claim is based on factual matters which may require an evidentiary hearing to be resolved. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 432 (Fla. 1998) (noting that “rule 3.800(a) motions should ‘be limited to those sentencing issues that can be resolved as a matter of law without an evidentiary determination’ ”) (quoting State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983, 988 (Fla.1995)); Reeves v. State, 719 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (affirming summary denial of rule 3.800 motion seeking additional jail credit which was based on factual matters that could not be resolved without an evidentiary hearing). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Wilson’s ability to raise his jail credit claim in a timely and properly sworn motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 872 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…[*1014] PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED without prejudice to Appellant to file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See, e.g., Wilson v. State, 779 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). SHARP, W., PETERSON and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Wilson v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Reeves v. State, 719 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)