MARION SMITH, 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 court held that a Rule 3.800(a) motion is not the proper vehicle to seek jail credit for time spent in a drug farm program, as such claims require an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant sought jail credit for time spent in a drug farm program via a Rule 3.800(a) motion. The trial court denied the motion.…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Marion Smith (“Appellant”) seeks review of an order denying his Rule 3.800(a) Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence wherein he requested 270 days of jail credit for the time he spent in the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Drug Farm program. We affirm.
Appellant seeks our determination that the drug farm is the functional equivalent of a jail for all intents and purposes and asks that he be awarded an additional jail credit. His claim raises questions of fact as to the coerciveness and restrictiveness of the program. Appellant’s motion was properly denied because his claim requires an evidentiary hearing and must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion. See Whitehead v. State, 677 So. 2d 40, 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (affirming order revoking probation but remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether or not appellant’s service in this drug farm sheriffs facility was sufficiently restrictive to be deemed the equivalent of incarceration). See also Kamerman v. State, 765 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (reversing sworn motion for jail credit for record attachments showing appellant is not entitled to relief or for evidentiary hearing determining whether Turning Point program qualifies appellant for jail time credit); and Columbro v. State, 777 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (affirming order denying Rule 3.800 claim which alleged that time served in a drug treatment program was as coercive and restrictive as jail because claim raised factual questions requiring an evidentiary hearing.)
This court makes no determination as to whether a prisoner is entitled to jail time credit for time served in the drug farm. Williams v. State, 711 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Robinson v. State, 689 So. 2d 1147, 1149 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice for Appellant to raise this claim in a timely filed rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief.
FARMER, C.J., GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Molina v. State, 867 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. We agree that the defendant was not entitled to credit for time served in an inpatient drug treatment program as required as a condition of his probation. Pennington v. State, 398 So. 2d 815 (Fla.1981); Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Toney v. State, 817 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Affirmed.…
-
Hamilton v. State, 898 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…' Point had “been determined [*173] to be equivalent to a jail-type setting.” Hamilton cites no authority, and we have found nothing that supports this assertion. In fact, this court has repeatedly refused to make such a finding. See Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Nonetheless, this court has on several occasions remanded to allow a defendant to present evidence that the conditions of such a drug treatment program equate to jail-like confinement. In eases where the defendant has made a con…
-
Comer v. State, 909 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…1998); Johnson v. State, 830 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Leach v. State, 774 So. 2d 899, 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Williams v. State, 699 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Carrier v. State, 894 So. 2d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Smith v. State, 849 So. 2d 409, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Whitehead and its progeny are no longer valid on this point of law. Toney and Molina, as approved by Cregan, properly set out the law of Florida on this subject. See also Hamilton v. State, 898 So. 2d 172, 173 (Fla. 4th DC…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 677 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Robinson v. State, 689 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Kaplan v. Goldfarb, 777 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Williams v. State, 711 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Kamerman v. State, 765 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)