MANUEL ROLON, 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.
Manuel Rolon appealed the denial of his motion for additional jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The court affirmed, finding that Rolon's form motion was facially insufficient because it failed to establish a claim that could be resolved without an evidentiary hearing and did not adequately explain his entitlement to jail credit across eight different cases.
The motion was facially insufficient because Rolon failed to allege facts establishing that the trial court could resolve his claim without an evidentiary hearing and failed to specifically explain why he was entitled to jail credit in any particular case or how his claim was established in available records.
[1] A motion for additional jail credit is facially insufficient if it fails to allege that the claim can be resolved without an evidentiary hearing.
[2] A defendant seeking jail credit must specifically explain why they are entitled to credit in a particular case and how the claim is established in the available court rec…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“This claim is facially insufficient because Rolon fails to allege that the trial court can resolve his claim without an evidentiary hearing.”
Establishes the legal standard for facial sufficiency of jail credit motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRolon claimed he was incarcerated in DeSoto County jail from July 20, 1999, to April 3, 2000, and received only 24 days of jail credit. He argued he d…
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 Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
[*66] PER CURIAM.
Manuel Rolon challenges the denial of his motion seeking additional jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s order because Rolon’s motion fails to present a facially sufficient claim for relief.
Rolon’s motion is a form document frequently filed by prisoners. In his motion, Rolon claims that he was incarcerated in the DeSoto County jail between July 20, 1999, and April 3, 2000. He asserts he received 24 days’ jail credit, and he argues that he deserved a total of 254 days’ jail credit for time spent in the DeSoto County jail prior to his sentencing on April 30, 2000.
This claim is facially insufficient because Rolon fails to allege that the trial court can resolve his claim without an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998). In addition, substantial confusion arises in this case because Rolon was charged in numerous cases and sentenced in many of them in early April 2000. This single motion purports to establish a claim for relief in eight different cases.
The trial court denied relief, relying on the judgments and sentences in these cases; however, numerous other documents were contained in the appellate record. It is clear from the record before this court that Rolon received jail credit in some of the listed cases equal to or in excess of the 254 days’ jail credit he seeks. Rolon has an obligation to specifically explain why he is entitled to jail credit in any particular case and how his claim is established in the records available to the trial court. In reviewing a facially sufficient claim, the trial court should consult any available jail records as well as the court record. See Hidalgo v. State, 729 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The form document used by Rolon is facially insufficient to establish any claim for relief on this issue in any of the eight listed cases.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of relief to Rolon. However, this affirmance is without prejudice to Rolon’s right to file a facially sufficient motion seeking relief in these cases.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and ' NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Toney v. State, 817 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…VINGTON, and KELLY, JJ., concur. . This includes, but is not limited to, Perez v. State, 801 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), Sparks v. State, 800 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), McCollum v. State, 799 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), Tennell v. State, 787 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and Branton v. State, 787 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). . The trial court denied Mr. Toney’s motion for rehearing as unauthorized under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) even though Mr. Toney filed the motion pursuant…
-
Hall v. State, 784 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…credit for the time that he spent in a live-in drug treatment center. However, Hall did not allege that the drug treatment center was the functional equivalent of jail and therefore did not present a facially sufficient claim. See Tennell v. State, 787 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Hall’s ability, if any, to raise this issue in a properly pleaded rule 3.800(a) motion or in a timely, facially sufficient motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.…
-
Flanagan v. State, 792 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…t out that Flanagan’s claim for additional jail credit is facially insufficient because it fails to explain why he is entitled to the additional credit and how his claim is established in the records available to the trial court. See Rolon v. State, 787 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). This affirmance is without prejudice to Flanagan’s right to file a facially sufficient motion raising this claim. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. THREADGILL, A.C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Hidalgo v. State, 729 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)