JAMES ROBERT REDDING, JR., 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 trial court erred in summarily denying a motion for jail time credit without attaching supporting records or stating grounds for denial.
The defendant sought credit for time served in a Texas jail on a Florida warrant. The trial court denied the motion without providing any reasons or a…
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 Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
[*418] STRINGER, Judge.
James Robert Redding, Jr. challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Redding sought credit for time served while being held in a Texas jail on a warrant issued in this case. We reverse because the trial court did not attach records or set forth any grounds supporting the denial of credit.
In the motion for correction of sentence, Redding alleged that he had been arrested on October 15, 2001, in Hidalgo County, Texas, on a fugitive warrant issued in Collier County, Florida, for violation of probation. Redding claimed that he was held in Texas solely on the Florida warrant. In his motion, Redding requested jail time credit from October 15, 2001, until December 7, 2001.
The trial court, in its order denying relief, cited McRae v. State, 820 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), asserting that the awarding of credit for time served out of state is within the sound discretion of the trial court. This is correct. However, McRae also held that the exercise of this discretion is not unbridled; when the trial court denies credit, the trial court must attach documentation or state the reasons for denying the credit. Id. at 1049. Because the trial court gave no indication as to any reason for the denial of credit and did not attach to the order any records supporting the denial, we reverse. On remand, the trial court should attach to its order pertinent documents or state in the order its reasons supporting the denial of credit. Otherwise, an appropriate amount of credit shall be determined and awarded. See Heuton v. State, 790 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garnett v. State, 957 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ective assistance of trial counsel under rule 3.850. We write to recede from this court’s prior decision in Heuton v. State, 790 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion. We also recede from Redding v. State, 848 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and Robbins v. State, 799 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), to the extent that these cases rely upon Heuton and conflict with the opinion herein. Mr. Garnett was charged with three counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child und…
Authorities Cited
- Carter D. Heuton v. State, 790 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- McRAE v. State, 820 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)