STEVEN CINTRON, 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.
Steven Cintron appealed the trial court's summary denial of his motion for jail credit in three criminal cases. The appellate court affirmed the denial in two cases but reversed and remanded the third case because the trial court failed to attach documents that conclusively refuted Cintron's claim for jail credit during a disputed confinement period.
The court affirmed the denial of jail credit in two cases but reversed and remanded the third case because the attached documents did not conclusively refute Cintron's claim. The trial court must attach documents that conclusively refute the claim, and if it cannot do so, Cintron is entitled to the relief sought.
[1] A trial court must attach record documents that conclusively refute a defendant's claim for jail credit when summarily denying a motion for such credit.
[2] If a trial court fails to attach record documents that conclusively refute a defendant's claim for jail credit, the case must be reversed and remanded.
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“educated guessing is not the function of this court”
Establishes the standard that trial courts must attach documents that conclusively refute jail credit claims, not merely create an educated guess about the defendant's confinement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCintron was unquestionably confined in jail on case 99-14520 from August 17-18, 1999, and from October 26, 2000, to his March 19, 2001 sentencing date…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) Motion For Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
COVINGTON, Judge.
Steven Cintron appeals the summary denial of his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Cintron filed his motion in three trial cases: 99-070038, 99-12279, and 99-14520. We affirm without comment the trial court’s summary denial of the motion in cases 99-070038 and 99-12279. However, we reverse and remand because the trial court failed to attach record documents that conclusively refute Cintron’s claim in case 99-14520.
It is undisputed that Cintron was in jail on case 99-14520 from August 17, 1999, to August 18, 1999, and from October 26, 2000, to the date of sentencing on March 19, 2001. In his motion, Cintron alleged that he was also in jail from August 9, 2000, to October 9, 2000. The trial court denied this claim and attached numerous 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. 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 this court.” Harden, 813 So. 2d at 225 n. 1. Despite the concerns expressed in Harden, documents continue to be provided that fail to show the dates of arrest, release, and commitment.
In this case, the trial court attached the documents in order to refute Cintron’s claim. However, we have examined the documents, and they appear to show that during the period for which Cintron seeks jail credit, the trial court denied a motion in case 99-14520 to set bond or to release Cintron on his own recognizance. Additionally, the clerk’s report seems to indicate that Cintron was incarcerated in a county jail during that period of time.
We therefore reverse and remand this case for further proceedings. If the trial court again denies this claim, the trial court must attach record documents that conclusively refute the claim. If the trial court cannot conclusively refute the claim, Cintron is entitled to relief.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
FULMER and KELLY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Harden v. State, 813 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Stanford v. State, 813 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)