CARLOS MONTANALIMA A.K.A. ANTONIO LIMA, 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.
Montanalima appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming he was entitled to credit for time served in jail on Hillsborough County charges while a Pinellas County detainer was allegedly in place. The court affirmed the denial because the document submitted did not establish that Pinellas County actually placed a detainer against him, making the motion facially insufficient.
The court affirmed the summary denial of Montanalima's motion because it was facially insufficient—the document attached did not establish that Pinellas County in fact placed a detainer against him. However, the affirmance was without prejudice, allowing Montanalima to file a new 3.800(a) motion meeting the requirements of Bain v. State or, if the claim cannot be resolved from the face of the record, a timely and facially sufficient sworn motion under Rule 3.850.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence is facially insufficient if the attached documentation does not establish the claim asserted.
[2] A defendant seeking credit for time served must demonstrate that a detainer was placed by the sentencing county while the defendant was incarcerated on charges from anoth…
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“Our review of the document reveals that it does not establish that Pinellas County in fact placed a detainer against him. Accordingly, Montanalima's motion is facially insufficient.”
Establishes the basis for affirming the summary denial—the motion lacked sufficient factual support on its face.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMontanalima was sentenced in Pinellas County after violating community control. The trial court did not award him credit for time served in jail and s…
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 Facially Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Carlos Montanalima appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Montanalima was sentenced in Pinellas County after violating community control. The trial court did not give Montanalima credit for time he had served in jail and in state prison on charges originating in Hillsborough County. In his 3.800(a) motion, Montanalima contends he was entitled to credit for that time because Pinel-las County had placed a detainer against him while he was incarcerated on the Hillsborough County charges.
Montanalima attached a document to his motion which is purportedly from the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office. He asserts that it shows he was being detained on the Pinellas County charges while he was in jail on the Hillsborough County charges. Our review of the document reveals that it does not establish that Pinellas County in fact placed a detainer against him. Accordingly, Montanalima’s motion is facially insufficient. We therefore affirm the summary denial of his motion but do so without prejudice to any right he may have to raise his claim in a rule 3.800(a) motion that meets the requirements of Bain v. State, 784 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), or, if this claim cannot be resolved from the face of the record, in a timely and facially sufficient sworn motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.1 See Keene v. State, 816 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Affirmed.
FULMER and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur. . We note that the motion at issue in this case is Montanalima's second rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional credit for time served in Hillsborough County and in state prison. The trial court denied the first motion on its merits. As a result, when Montanalima filed this motion, the trial court denied it as successive. Montanalima’s first motion was facially insufficient, however, and should not have been considered on the merits. Because both motions Montanalima filed were facially insufficient, any 3.800(a) motion he files as a result of this appeal is not successive.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Keene v. State, 816 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- A.V. v. State, 784 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)