TYRONE FORD, 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.
Tyrone Ford appealed the trial court's order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence by seeking additional jail credit. The appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to attach sufficient record documents to allow appellate review of whether Ford was properly credited for time served.
The court reversed and remanded because the trial court's order was deficient in its attachments. The appellate court could not determine from the record whether Ford was properly credited, noting apparent discrepancies on the attached sheriff's certificate and the absence of critical documents. If the trial court denies Ford's claims on remand, it must attach record portions that conclusively refute his claims.
[1] A trial court must attach record documents that conclusively refute a defendant's claim when denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
[2] Failure to attach all necessary record documents to an order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence warrants reversal and remand.
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“the trial court failed to attach to its order the judgment and sentences for these three cases or the sheriffs certificates for the two 2000 cases. Therefore, it is impossible for this court to determine from the present appellate record if Ford was properly credited for jail time in any of these three cases.”
Establishes the core ground for reversal—insufficient record documents prevented appellate review of the jail credit claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFord filed a motion seeking jail credit in three felony cases (two from 2000, one from 1999), claiming he received only 21 days' credit when he was en…
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
STRINGER, Judge.
Tyrone Ford timely appeals the order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings because the trial court failed to attach to its order the record documents that would conclusively refute his claim.
Ford filed a motion seeking jail credit in three felony eases; two of these cases are from the year 2000 and one of these cases is from the year 1999. In his motion, Ford sought sixty-six days of additional jail credit for time spent incarcerated from February 11, 2001, to the date of his sentencing, April 18, 2001. In his motion, Ford asserts that he received only twenty-one days’ jail credit in these cases.
The trial court’s order denied Ford relief, indicating that he received 201 days’ jail credit on these cases and that this credit included the dates mentioned by Ford. The court attached to its order a Polk County booking sheet and the sheriffs certificate for the 1999 case. The sheriffs certificate indicates that Ford was to receive 201 days’ jail credit in his 1999 case. This court notes that the total amount of jail credit authorized by the sheriffs certificate attached to the trial court’s order does not match the dates indicated on that certificate for Ford’s pri-or incarceration. It appears from the face of that certificate that Ford may be entitled to 220 days’ jail credit in the 1999 case. Moreover, the court failed to attach to its order the judgment and sentences for these three cases or the sheriffs certificates for the two 2000 cases. Therefore, it is impossible for this court to determine from the present appellate record if Ford was properly credited for jail time in any of these three cases.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court should again deny Ford’s claims, it must attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute his claims. See Clinesmith v. State, 775 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Collins v. State, 805 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…rule 3.800(a) motion. State v. Swyck, 716 So. 2d 767 (Fla.1998). [*74] Here, the trial court order denying relief in both cases failed to attach supporting portions of the record refuting appellant’s claims. This is reversible error. Ford v. State, 801 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Martin v. State, 799 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Speer v. State, 734 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The State has attempted to remedy this error by submitting record attachments along with its response to this court’s order…
Authorities Cited
- Clinesmith v. State, 775 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)