RON E. ROBINSON, 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 the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to correct the sentence because the record did not conclusively refute the defendant's claim for prior prison credit.
Robinson moved to correct his sentence, alleging that his sentencing documents did not accurately reflect the trial court's award of prior prison cred…
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 To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ron E. Robinson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800.
In his motion, Robinson alleges he was sentenced to a split sentence. Subsequently, he violated his probation and when he was resentenced the trial court awarded him prior prison credit. He further contends that his sentencing documents do not accurately reflect the trial court’s award of the prison credit. A claim for additional credit is cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998) (holding that “credit time issues are cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief’).
The trial court’s order denying Robinson’s motion to correct an illegal sentence included a copy of the plea colloquy, which supports Robinson’s claim that he is entitled to such credit.
Because Robinson’s judgment and sentence is missing from his lower court file, the sentencing documents are unavailable for review. Consequently, nothing provided by the trial court conclusively refutes Robinson’s claim. In fact, the attachments may even support his claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of the contention raised in Robinson’s motion.
If the trial court determines that Robinson’s motion is without merit, it must attach those portions of the record that refute his claim of failure to follow the trial court’s oral sentencing pronouncement. Otherwise, we remand for further proceedings on this claim.
STONE, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pierson v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the appellant’s allegations that he was not awarded credit for the initial time served on the incarcerative portion of his “split sentence,” or to grant the requested relief. See Robinson v. State, 786 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Layman v. State, 787 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). REVERSED and REMANDED. MINER, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
-
Waco Linn Allums v. State, 802 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…’s motion, stating only that his claim is incognizable via a rule 3.800 motion. Because “[a] claim for additional credit is cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion,” the trial court was incorrect in denying the appellant’s motion. See Robinson v. State, 786 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(eiting State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla. 1998) for the proposition that “credit time issues are cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an enti…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)