ANDREW GILBERT, 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.
Andrew Gilbert appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that Gilbert's claims for ten and twenty-five days of jail credit were facially insufficient because he failed to allege that the court records showed he was entitled to them.
The court affirmed the denial of Gilbert's motion, holding that his claims for ten and twenty-five days of jail credit were facially insufficient because he did not allege that the court records showed he was entitled to those credits. The court left open the possibility for Gilbert to file a facially sufficient motion addressing all three claimed jail credits.
[1] A motion for jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is facially insufficient if it does not allege that court records establish entitlement to the…
[2] A defendant may be permitted to refile a motion for jail credit if the initial motion was facially insufficient, to avoid piecemeal litigation.
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“Gilbert sought three separate credits of fifteen, ten, and twenty-five days' credit. In seeking the fifteen days' credit, Gilbert alleged that the claim could be determined from the face of the court records. In seeking the ten and twenty-five day credits, Gilbert alleged only that the record established that he did not receive those credits. He did not allege that the court records showed he was entitled to them. Thus, Gilbert's claims regarding the ten and twenty-five day credits are facially insufficient.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for finding facial insufficiency in Gilbert's motion—the distinction between alleging something can be determined from records versus merely alleging non-receipt of credit.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGilbert pleaded guilty in 1986 to two counts and was sentenced to fifteen years' probation on count four, consecutive to a four-year prison sentence o…
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 Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
Andrew Gilbert challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
In 1986, Gilbert pleaded guilty to two counts of a multicount information. He was sentenced to fifteen years’ probation on count four, consecutive to a four-year prison sentence on count one. After two violations of probation, Gilbert was sentenced to seven years’ prison on count four with 1460 days’ credit for time served. In his 3.800(a) motion, Gilbert sought fifty days’ jail credit for the time he spent in jail on the violations of probation prior to his being sentenced to prison.
The trial court denied the motion finding that the written sentence showed that Gilbert had stipulated to 1460 days’ credit.
However, the written sentence indicates that Gilbert was awarded 1460 days’ credit for the time he had previously spent in prison on count one of the information. The written sentence further indicated that the credit was awarded pursuant to State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla.1989), and Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993).
Thus, it would appear that Gilbert stipulated to 14601 days as being the prison credit to which he was entitled, and not his jail credit.
Gilbert sought three separate credits of fifteen, ten, and twenty-five days’ credit. In seeking the fifteen days’ credit, Gilbert alleged that the claim could be determined from the face of the court records. In seeking the ten and twenty-five day credits, Gilbert alleged only that the record established-that he did not receive those credits. He did not allege that the court records showed he was entitled to them.
Thus, Gilbert’s claims regarding the ten and twenty-five day credits are facially insufficient. See Colosimo v. State, 775 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In the interest of avoiding piecemeal litigation, we affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to Gilbert to file a rule 3.800(a) motion that is facially sufficient as to all three of Gilbert’s jail credit claims. Our affirmance is also without prejudice to any right Gilbert might have to file a timely, facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Affirmed.
PARKER and SALCINES, JJ„ Concur. . We note that Gilbert was sentenced to four years’ prison on count one of the information and that 4 times 365 is 1460.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kalishea Reed v. State, 810 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…d be allowed a total of 251 days’ jail credit followed by the phrase, “Stipulated Credit.” Reed appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion. We affirm the trial court’s order because Reed’s motion is facially insufficient. See Gilbert v. State, 805 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that a rule 3.800(a) motion that does not allege that the court records show the defendant’s entitlement to additional jail credit is facially insufficient). Our affirmance on this basis is without prejudice to Reed’s rig…
-
Brown v. State, 912 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…d a plea offer of 364 days’ incarceration with no credit for time served and rejected an offer of 18 months’ prison with 62 days’ jail credit. We affirm the trial court’s order because Brown’s motion is facially insufficient. See Gilbert v. State, 805 So. 2d 70, 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that a rule 3.800(a) motion that does not allege that the court records show the defendant’s entitlement to additional jail credit is facially insufficient). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Brown’s right to ref…
-
Norman v. State, 809 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…urt records demonstrate his entitlement to ad [*894] ditional jail credit, and Norman did not attach any court or jail records to his motion. We affirm the trial court’s order because Norman’s motion is facially insufficient. See Gilbert v. State, 805 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that a rule 3.800(a) motion that does not allege that the court records show the defendant’s entitlement to additional jail credit is facially insufficient). Our affirmance on this basis is without prejudice to Norman’s r…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1989)
- Kendal Colosimo v. State, 775 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Forszpaniak v. Forszpaniak, 775 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)