RONALD G. DECOSTE, 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 trial court's order summarily denying the defendant's motion for additional jail time credit is affirmed because the motion did not clearly establish entitlement to relief.
The defendant alleged he received insufficient jail credit and should have received 298 days based on his bond surrender date. The time period from hi…
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 Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1202] PALMER, J.
Ronald G. Decoste (defendant) appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his rule 3.800(a) motion which sought the award of additional jail time credit.1 As defendant’s motion does not clearly show an entitlement to receive additional jail time credit, the trial court’s order denying relief is affirmed.
In his motion, the defendant alleged he only received two days of jail credit when he was sentenced and that he should have received 298 days of jail credit as his bond in this case was surrendered on December 10, 2001. These allegations are legally insufficient to require the trial court to grant the defendant relief under rule 3.800(a) because they do not demonstrate that the defendant was taken into custody in this case on December 10, 2001, and they do not specifically list the dates on which the defendant was in jail before sentencing. Moreover, while the defendant claims entitlement to 298 days of jail credit, the time period from December 10, 2001 until sentencing on March 27, 2003 exceeds 298 days.
Jail credit issues are more appropriately brought in a rule 3.8502 proceeding if the defendant is requesting additional jail credit due to factual matters not ascertainable' from the trial court’s records. As such, our ruling is without prejudice to the defendant’s right to file a rule 3.850 motion. See Blake v. State, 807 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). See also McKnight v. State, 769 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(noting that where defendant claimed he voluntarily canceled his bond on one charge after being arrested and jailed on another charge, evidentiary hearing would be necessary, so rule 3.800(a) review was not appropriate).
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800.
. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason v. State, 987 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Decoste v. State, 898 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.…
-
Burriesci v. State, 955 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…s. See Harnage v. State, 946 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). However, affir-mance is without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a rule 3.850 motion within thirty (30) days of issuance of this Court’s opinion raising this claim. Decoste v. State, 898 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Affirmed without Prejudice. GUNTHER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
-
Johnson v. State, 65 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ge when he was arrested, when he bonded out, or when his bond was revoked. In the absence of these allegations and the jail certificates that would establish his entitlement to relief, the appellant’s claim was properly denied. See Decoste v. State, 898 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA2005). AFFIRMED. DAVIS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, 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
- Blake v. State, 807 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Albano v. State, 769 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 769 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)