EDWARD WALSH, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of jail credit motion where defendant clearly showed entitlement to five additional days of custody credit from arrest to bond release.
When a defendant alleges clear entitlement to additional jail credit on the face of the record, the circuit court must either grant the credit or attach record portions explaining why the defendant is not entitled to it.
[1] When a defendant alleges clear entitlement to additional jail credit on the face of the record in a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), the circuit…
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 intelligenceEdward Walsh was arrested on July 12, 2001, and released on bond on July 16, 2001. He received 195 days of jail credit, which he claims covered only t…
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 Record On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Edward Walsh appeals the order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Walsh alleges that it is clear on the face of the record that he is entitled to an additional five days of jail credit. Walsh claims he did not receive credit for the time he was in custody from his arrest on July 12, 2001, until July 16, 2001, when he was released on bond. Although Walsh received 195 days of jail credit, he asserts that amount only covered the time he was in county jail after his bond was revoked.
The circuit court denied Walsh’s 3.800(a) motion without comment. If a defendant alleges that the record shows a clear entitlement to additional jail credit, the circuit court must either grant the additional credit or attach portions of the record to show that defendant is not entitled to additional credit or that it is unclear whether he is entitled to the additional credit. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998); Brown v. State, 816 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The circuit court in the instant case did not explain its reason for denying the legally sufficient motion, nor did it attach any documents to refute the allegations therein. We therefore re verse the order denying the 3.800(a) motion and remand the case to the circuit court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, C.J., PETERSON and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooks v. State, 913 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…incorporating court records. We reverse and remand to the trial court to either attach portions of the record to support the denial of jail credit or to award the proper credit. See Friss v. State, 881 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Walsh v. State, 866 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Thomas v. State, 854 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions. PETERSON and PALMER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- In re T/U/W Albert Pollak v. Berkett, 816 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Brown v. State, 816 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)