AARON L. WHITFIELD, 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 under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) was properly denied because the motion failed to allege that court records on their face demonstrated entitlement to relief.
A rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence based on insufficient jail credit must allege that specific court records, such as a jail card or certificate, demonstrate entitlement to the relief sought.
[1] A motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to correct an illegal sentence based on insufficient jail credit must allege that specific court records, such…
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“a facially sufficient rule 3.800 motion to correct an illegal sentence must allege where and how the court records demonstrate entitlement to relief”
The court explained the requirement for sufficiency of a rule 3.800(a) motion, citing Baker v. State.
Appellant claimed he was entitled to 142 days of jail credit for two periods of incarceration (April 2–May 17, 1999, and January 21–April 28, 2000) wh…
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 Jail Credit Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, C.J.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), alleging he is due an additional 19 days of jail credit. The appellant alleges he was in jail from April 2, 1999, through May 17, 1999, and January 21, 2000, through April 28, 2000, awaiting sentencing, for a total of 142 days, rather than the 123 days claimed by the State.
The trial court denied the claim, relying on the dates of incarceration supplied by the State. While this information, which is not from the court file, provided a legally insufficient basis to deny the claim, we affirm because the original rule 3.800(a) motion fails to allege “that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to that relief.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a). See Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
In Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), we held that a facially sufficient rule 3.800 motion to correct an illegal sentence must allege where and how the court records demonstrate entitlement to relief. In cases involving an allegation of a sentencing illegality based on insufficient jail credit, we have held that a motion is sufficient which alleges that there is a jail card or certificate demonstrating appellant’s entitlement to relief. See, e.g., Clark v. State, 851 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). In the instant case, however, appellant makes no allegation that such a document appears in the record. We affirm based on Baker. ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ly directs the circuit court to that part of the record where his entitlement to relief may be found. Moreover, the decision in Baker is consistent with the case law that I have cited. Citing to Baker, the First District Court in Whitfield v. State, 864 So. 2d 562, 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), explained that "[i]n cases involving an allegation of a sentencing illegality based on insufficient jail credit, we have held that a motion is sufficient which alleges that there is a jail card or certificate demonstrating…
-
Nieves v. State, 113 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…ehearing as untimely. After reviewing the circumstances described by Nieves and receiving a response from the State, we deem the rehearing motion and, thus, this appeal timely. . Nieves’s motion was sorely lacking in detail, see Whitfield v. State, 864 So. 2d 562, 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("[A] facially sufficient rule 3.800 motion to correct an illegal sentence must allege where and how the court records demonstrate entitlement to relief.”), but the State and postconviction court reviewed the records in the…
-
Anderson v. State, 96 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…[*1042] PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s order summarily denying, as facially insufficient, the defendant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion to allow credit for jail time served. See Whitfield v. State, 864 So. 2d 562, 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“[A] facially sufficient rule 3.800 motion to correct an illegal sentence must allege where and how the court records demonstrate entitlement to relief.” (citing Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998))). Howeve…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williamson v. Penni Lane Williamson, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Cross v. State, 851 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)