CHRISTOPHER MONROE, 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.
Trial court erred in summarily denying Monroe's motion to clarify sentence where he claimed missing presentencing jail credit, which the trial court has authority to address under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
The trial court, not the Department of Corrections, has responsibility for determining and crediting presentencing jail time, and must consider a defendant's rule 3.800(a) motion challenging such credit.
[1] The trial court has authority under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to address a defendant's claim of missing presentencing jail credit, while postsentencing…
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 intelligence“The trial court, not the Department of Corrections, is responsible for presentencing jail time credit.”
Court explaining the proper allocation of responsibility between trial court and DOC for jail credit issues.
Christopher Monroe filed motions to clarify and correct his sentence, claiming he was not properly credited for jail time served both before and after…
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 Motion To Clarify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Christopher Monroe challenges the summary denial of his motions to clarify sentence and correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Monroe claims that his sentence does not accurately reflect the jail and prison credit he has earned. The trial court denied his motions, stating that the Department of Corrections, not the trial court, is the proper place to challenge postsentencing jail time credit issues. However, it is clear from his motions that Monroe claims to be missing both presen-tencing and postsentencing jail time credit. The trial court, not the Department of Corrections, is responsible for presentenc-ing jail time credit. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998). If the record reflects that Monroe served time prior to sentencing and that the sentence does not properly credit the defendant with this time, then the sentence may be challenged under rule 3.800. Mancino, 714 So. 2d at 433. This case is therefore remanded to the trial court to consider Monroe’s claims regarding presentencing jail credit.1 If the trial court again denies the motion, it shall attach those documents that conclusively refute the jail credit claim.
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur. . The relief Monroe seeks regarding jail time spent after sentencing must be sought through administrative proceedings with the Department of Corrections. Knight v. State, 681 So. 2d 772, 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stokes v. State, 851 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…claims for jail credit for days after his sentencing date of February 19, 2001. The relief he seeks regarding jail time spent after sentencing must be sought through administrative proceedings with the Department of Corrections. See Monroe v. State, 842 So. 2d 265, 265 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Knight v. State, 681 So. 2d 772, 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Accordingly, the trial court was correct in denying Stokes’ motion. Affirmed. FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.…
-
Foster v. State, 106 So. 3d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…orrections to determine the proper amount of presen-tencing jail time credit that Foster should receive. Foster appealed. “The trial court, not the Department of Corrections, is responsible for pre-sentencing jail time credit.” See Monroe v. State, 842 So. 2d 265, 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Moreover, on appeal from a summary denial of a Rule 3.800 motion, this court must reverse unless the post-conviction record, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the defendant is entitled to no relief.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Knight v. State, 681 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)