TRAVIS HANKERSON, 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 time credit because the trial court failed to attach supporting record documents to refute the appellant's claims.
A trial court errs in summarily denying a motion for jail time credit without attaching portions of the record supporting its factual findings.
[1] A trial court must attach supporting portions of the record when denying a motion for jail time credit, or remand is required for the trial court to either refute the cla…
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 intelligenceHankerson claimed he was incarcerated on three cases from December 23, 1996, to January 16, 1998 (380 days) but did not receive full credit. The trial…
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 Summary Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Travis Hankerson (Appellant) appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for additional jail time credit, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. He claimed he was incarcerated on three lower tribunal cases from December 23, 1996, to January 16, 1998, or 380 days, but did not receive full credit. The trial court’s order explained that he was granted credit for the 380 days' in the two 1996 cases, but that he was not arrested in the 1997 case until January 27, 1997. (Documents filed by the state in response to this court’s order to show cause indicate that he received only 360 days credit for time served in the 1997 case.)
The trial court’s order did not attach, and the state’s response has not supplied, any portion of the files and records in this case supporting the trial court’s statement that Appellant was not arrested in the 1997 case until January 27, 1997. We conclude that the trial court erred in denying relief without attaching supporting portions of the record. Accordingly, the order on appeal is reversed and remanded with directions for the trial court either to refute Appellant’s claims with record attachments or to award the appropriate credit. See, e.g., Collins v. State, 805 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
WARNER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.