ROBBIE DORMINEY, 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.
Court reversed summary denial of motion for additional jail credit where trial court failed to establish defendant's clear intent to waive accrued jail time.
A trial court cannot summarily deny a facially sufficient motion for additional jail credit without establishing the defendant's clear intent to waive accrued jail time through adequate court records.
[1] Trial court records must affirmatively establish a defendant's clear intent to waive accrued jail time credits in order to summarily deny a facially sufficient motion for…
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“court records must establish the defendant's clear intent to waive a portion of his accrued jail time in order to deny a facially sufficient motion for additional jail credit on the grounds of a waiver”
Standard for denying jail credit motions based on waiver
Appellant was arrested on a Clay County warrant on February 25, 2003, and sentenced on January 28, 2004, receiving 43 days of jail credit. He moved fo…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion alleging an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim that he is entitled to additional jail credit1 and because the trial court’s attachments do not conclusively refute the appellant’s claim, which the state concedes, we reverse and remand to the trial court for additional attachments which establish the defendant’s clear intent to waive a portion of his accrued jail time or to grant the appellant’s request for relief. See Haines v. State, 851 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Reed v. State, 810 So. 2d 1025, 1026-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that the trial “court records must establish the defendant’s clear intent to waive a portion of his” accrued jail time in order to deny a facially sufficient motion for additional jail credit on the grounds of a waiver).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
KAHN, VAN NORTWICK, and HAWKES, JJ., concur. . The appellant alleges that he is entitled to 288 days of additional jail credit. However, he was arrested on the Clay County warrant on February 25, 2003, and ultimately sentenced on January 28, 2004, and awarded 43 days’ jail credit. Therefore, it appears that he miscalculates his entitlement to jail credit, as he would actually be entitled to 295 days of additional jail credit.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butler v. State, 939 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…h portions of the record which conclusively refute the appellant’s claim, we reverse and remand to the trial court to attach additional portions which conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or to grant the relief requested. See Dorminey v. State, 895 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). REVERSED and REMANDED. BROWNING, C.J., DAVIS, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.…
-
Fernard George Ramcald, Jr. v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Kalishea Reed v. State, 810 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Haines v. State, 851 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)