DANIEL R. DEESE, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of jail credit because the motion was facially insufficient, failing to demonstrate entitlement to relief from court records alone.
Daniel R. Deese sought jail credit for time spent in Orange County jail after a Polk County detainer was placed on him. The trial court denied the mot…
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 Facially Sufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Daniel R. Deese challenges the order of the trial court summarily denying his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800.
In his motion, Deese sought credit against his prison sentence for the time he spent in jail in Orange County after a detainer was placed on him from Polk County. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Deese was entitled to credit only from the time he was arrested in Orange County on the Polk County charges and not from the time the Polk County detainer was placed on Deese. The trial court was without the benefit of Bryant v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D693, — So. 2d-, 2001 WL 219857 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 7, 2001) (en banc), wherein we held that Bryant was entitled to jail credit in a Hillsborough County case from the date that the Hillsborough County detainer was placed on him in Escambia County.
We nevertheless affirm the order of the trial court because Deese failed to allege that the court records on their face demonstrate his entitlement to relief. See Hampton v. State, 746 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), receded from on other grounds, Bryant, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D693, — So. 2d-. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Deese might have to file a facially sufficient motion for jail credit under rule 3.800. See Hampton, 746 So. 2d 1191.
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morrow v. State, 799 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…e various pleadings. However, this affirmance is without prejudice to Morrow’s ability, if any, to file in the trial court a facially sufficient, factually specific motion seeking additional jail credit pursuant to rule 3.800(a). See Deese v. State, 782 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Dismissed in part and affirmed in part. PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.…
-
Toto v. State, 805 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…2001), he has failed to allege that a detainer was placed on him for these cases while he was incarcerated in Pinellas County. Second, Toto has failed to allege that the court records demonstrate on their face entitlement to relief. Deese v. State, 782 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order on this claim without prejudice to any right Toto might have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion or a timely motion pursuant to rule 3.850 in the event that factual issu…
-
Amos v. State, 800 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ctually received. The trial court failed to address his claim. However, Amos failed to allege that the trial court records on their face demonstrate his entitlement to relief, and he has not presented a facially sufficient claim. See Deese v. State, 782 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Amos might have to file a facially sufficient motion for jail credit under rule 3.800(a). Should Amos be unable to demonstrate that his motion for jail credit can be determined fro…1 / 2
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
- Hampton v. State, 746 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)