JESSIE HARDEN, 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 denying a motion for additional jail credit without sufficient documentation.
The appellant claimed he was awarded insufficient jail credit in two separate cases. The trial court denied his motion, attaching various documents th…
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 Correction Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Jessie Harden appeals the trial court’s order which denied his motion to correct sentence to reflect additional jail credit. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In circuit court case number 00-10542, Harden claims that he is entitled to 257 days’ jail credit but that he was awarded only 205 days’ credit. In circuit court case number 00-9702, Harden claims that he is also entitled to 257 days’ jail credit but that he was awarded only 242 days’ credit. The trial court denied the motion and attached numerous documents, including court documents, some jail documents, and a bonding agency’s documents. However, none of these attachments clearly reflect the number of days Harden was confined in jail on either of the charges.1
We therefore reverse this case and remand it to the trial court with directions to attach documents which clearly reflect the jail credit to which Harden is entitled and any jail documents supporting its denial of Harden’s motion. If the trial court is unable to do so, Harden is entitled to relief.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur. . In the past, trial court orders from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit have included as an attachment the inmate’s jail records which reflected the arrest date, any dates of release, and the commitment date to the Department of Corrections. Those jail records clearly reflected the time a defendant was confined in the Hillsborough Comity Jail. In this case, there is no such attachment. While the attachments in this case Eire sufficient to permit this court to make an educated guess that might support the trial court's order, educated guessing is not the function of this court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cintron v. State, 827 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…us documents that consisted primarily of calendar reports from the clerk of court. These documents do not clearly reflect the number of days Cintron was confined in jail on this case. [*1079] Recently this court issued an opinion in Harden v. State, 813 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), concerning the attachment of certain documents to orders denying jail credit. There we said that while these attachments allow us to make an educated guess about the defendant’s claim, “educated guessing is not the function of th…
-
Harden v. State, 829 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)….800(a). In his motion, Harden sought additional jail credit in trial cases 00-9702 and 00-10542. The trial court denied additional jail credit in one order that addressed both cases. Harden first appealed the trial court’s order in Harden v. State, 813 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). This court reversed and remanded for the trial court to attach documents that “clearly reflect the jail credit to which Harden is entitled and any jail documents supporting its denial of Harden’s motion.” Id. at 225. On remand, t…