THOMAS LAND, 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 reversed the trial court's summary denial of jail credit because the record did not conclusively refute the appellant's claim that he was entitled to 200 days rather than the 169 days awarded.
A trial court must attach documentary evidence to conclusively refute a facially sufficient jail credit claim under Rule 3.800(a) or grant the requested relief.
[1] A trial court must attach documentary evidence to conclusively refute a facially sufficient jail credit claim under Rule 3.800(a) rather than summarily denying the motion…
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 intelligenceLand sought additional jail credit, claiming entitlement to 200 days but receiving only 169 days. The trial court denied his motion, asserting he had …
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 For Additional Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion seeking additional jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the record does not conclusively refute the appellant’s claim, we reverse.
The appellant made a facially sufficient claim for jail credit under rule 3.800 by providing the dates for which he is seeking credit, the date of his sentence, and alleging that the jail certificate would show that he is entitled to credit. See Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998). It appears that the appellant is entitled to 200 days of jail credit and that he was only awarded 169 days of credit. The trial court asserted that the appellant agreed to only 169 days of jail credit as a part of his plea agreement. However, the trial court failed to attach the appellant’s plea agreement to support its conclusion. See Moore v. State, 741 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial and remand for the trial court to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or to grant the appellant’s requested relief.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
KAHN, WEBSTER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Am. Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Gerda Jackson, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Moore v. State, 741 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)