BOBBY WASHINGTON, 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.
Bobby Washington appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming he was awarded only 137 days of credit when entitled to 253 days. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to attach record documents that conclusively refuted his facially sufficient claim.
The trial court's order denying the motion for jail credit was reversed and remanded because Washington stated a facially sufficient claim and the trial court failed to attach record documents that conclusively refuted his claim. On remand, if the trial court again denies the claim, it must attach documents such as the sheriff's jail log that conclusively refute the claim.
[1] A trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute a defendant's facially sufficient claim for jail credit when denying a motion for such credit.
[2] A defendant is not entitled to have jail credit applied equally to all prison sentences, even if those sentences are run concurrently, if the defendant was arrested for d…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Because the trial court did not attach portions of the trial court record that conclusively refute Washington's facially sufficient claim for relief, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.”
Establishes the standard requiring trial court to attach conclusive record evidence when denying jail credit motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWashington was sentenced to concurrent two-year prison sentences in three separate trial court cases on the same day. He claimed he received only 137 …
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) Motion For Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
[*610] PER CURIAM.
Bobby Washington challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the trial court did not attach portions of the trial court record that conclusively refute Washington’s facially sufficient claim for relief, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
In his motion, Washington alleged that he was only awarded 137 days’ credit against his prison sentence for the time he spent in jail prior to sentencing on trial court case number 02-569 when he should have been awarded 253 days’ credit. He further alleged that the trial court records, on their face, demonstrate an entitlement to relief. Washington presented a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) jail credit claim. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998).
The trial court denied relief on this claim, attaching the response of the State to its order to show cause why Washington should not be entitled to relief. In its response, the State noted that Washington was sentenced on the same day to concurrent two-year prison sentences in three separate trial court cases, including the present case. Because Washington alleged that the failure to award the correct amount of jail credit was a violation of his plea agreement, the State interpreted Washington’s motion as alleging that, because he was sentenced concurrently in all cases, he was entitled to the same amount of jail credit in trial court case number 02-569 as was awarded in trial court case number 02-393 even though he spent less time in jail in case number 02-569. The State was correct in determining that a defendant who is arrested for different offenses on different dates is not entitled to have jail credit applied equally to all prison sentences even though the sentences are run concurrently. See Dennis v. State, 754 So. 2d 857, 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
However, the State’s interpretation of Washington’s claim is only a possible interpretation and, as noted, Washington stated a facially sufficient claim that the trial court records would show that he was entitled to 253 days’ credit.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court. On remand, if the trial court again denies this claim, it shall attach those record documents, such as the sheriffs jail log, which conclusively refute the claim. See Whitt v. State, 807 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Reversed and remanded.
STRINGER, COVINGTON, and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nieves v. State, 113 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a). However, “a defendant who is arrested for different offenses on different dates is not entitled to have jail credit applied equally to all prison sentences even though the sentences are run concurrently.” Washington v. State, 873 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); see also Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (“The fact that a defendant receives concurrent sentences at the same time does not mandate that the longest of the jail time credits be applied against all of…
-
De La Cruz v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…(Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[A] defendant who is arrested for different offenses on different dates is not entitled to have jail credit applied equally to all prison sentences even though the sentences are run concurrently.” (quoting Washington v. State, 873 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004))). COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.…
-
De La Cruz v. State, 258 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…d DCA 2013) (“[A] defendant who is arrested for different offenses on different dates is not entitled to have jail credit applied equally to 2 all prison sentences even though the sentences are run concurrently.” (quoting Washington v. State, 873 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004))). COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.…
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
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Whitt v. State, 807 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Dennis v. State, 754 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)