GARY KOESTER, 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 was reversed because the trial court failed to attach record portions refuting the claim or state that the record was silent, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
When a trial court denies a facially sufficient jail credit motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), it must either attach portions of the record refuting the claim or state that the record is silent.
[1] When a trial court denies a jail credit motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), it must attach record portions refuting the claim or state the record is…
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 intelligenceAppellant sought 104 days of jail credit but was awarded only 30 days. He filed a motion under rule 3.800(a) providing the relevant dates and citing s…
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 Facially Sufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion seeking additional jail credit, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the appellate record does not conclusively refute the appellant’s claim, we reverse.
The appellant made a facially sufficient claim for jail credit pursuant to rule 3.800(a) by providing the dates for which he is seeking credit and the date of his sentence, and alleging the specific record portions that 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). According to the appellant, he is entitled to 104 days of jail credit but he was only awarded 30. When a trial court denies such a claim made pursuant to rule 3.800(a), it must either attach to the order those portions of the record which refute the claim or, if the record is silent regarding the amount of jail credit, so state. Thomas, 634 So. 2d at 177-78. The trial court did neither. Accordingly, we reverse and remand. Should the trial court again determine that the claim lacks merit, it shall ensure that its order denying relief complies with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ALLEN, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ufficient. Since the 2000 amendment, the courts have consistently held that the Mancino requirement of the rule is satisfied if the motion alleges the specific portion of the record that shows the defendant’s entitlement to relief. Koester v. State, 864 So. 2d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“The appellant made a facially sufficient claim for jail credit pursuant to rule 3.800(a) by providing the dates for which he is seeking credit and the date of his sentence, and alleging the specific record portions that w…
-
Maloy v. State, 888 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…jail credit and the trial court failed to either attach record portions that refute the appellant’s claim to its order or to state that the record is silent regarding jail credit, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Koester v. State, 864 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). REVERSED and REMANDED. ALLEN, DAVIS, and BENTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Aguilar v. State, 916 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…. Because the claimant has failed to state a facially sufficient claim for jail credit in his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), the trial court’s final order denying the motion is AFFIRMED. See Koester v. State, 864 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). ERVIN, DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)