GUINN MARTIN CHITTY, 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.
Appellant's motion for additional jail credit was improperly summarily denied where he presented a facially sufficient claim with record attachments showing disparate credit for arrests and sentences on the same days in two cases.
A trial court must consider a facially sufficient Rule 3.800(a) motion for jail credit supported by record attachments rather than summarily denying it without attaching excerpts conclusively establishing ineligibility.
[1] A trial court must not summarily deny a Rule 3.800(a) motion for jail credit that states a facially sufficient claim with supporting record attachments, but must instead…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was arrested on two charges in separate cases on the same day and sentenced on both charges at the same time, but received disparate jail cr…
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
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for more jail credit, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand with instructions. The appellant claims that he was arrested on two charges in two separate cases on the same day, and that he was later sentenced on both charges at the same time. Although the appellant has attached record excerpts that show that he was arrested and sentenced on the same days on both charges and that he received disparate jail credit for these two cases, the trial court denied the appellant’s claim as failing to direct the court to portions of the record demonstrating an entitlement to relief. However, the appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim pursuant to rule 3.800(a) and his record attachments satisfy the requirements of Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167, 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial and remand for further consideration of the appellant’s claim pursuant to Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543, 545 (Fla.1986). If the trial court again denies the appellant’s claim for more jail credit, it must attach record excerpts conclusively establishing that the appellant is not entitled to relief.
REVERSED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
ERVIN, DAVIS, and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1986)
- Williamson v. Penni Lane Williamson, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)