STEVEN HARTSFIELD, A/K/A STEVEN HEARTSFIELD, 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 court held that while a circuit court judge may have jurisdiction to transfer a filing, the appellant's motion was filed under an incorrect rule and his allegations were insufficient for relief.
Steven Hartsfield appealed an order denying his postconviction motion for jail credit. He sought additional jail credit in Lee County cases based on 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 Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Steven Hartsfield appeals an order denying his postconviction motion for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Hartsfield is currently serving three concurrent prison sentences that were apparently imposed in Lee County in September 2004 in case numbers 03-2092CFA and 02-254CFA. He maintains that the judge at sentencing in Lee County agreed to give him jail credit for time served in three other cases in which sentences had not yet been imposed. Those cases were pending in Collier County, and a judge in that county sentenced Mr. Hartsfield in November 2004. He now claims that he is entitled to 170 additional days of jail credit in the Lee County cases as a result of the Collier County cases.
Mr. Hartsfield filed a single motion for jail credit in Collier County that listed the three Collier County case numbers in the style of the case. Despite the style, he asked for relief concerning the judgments in Lee County. The trial court dismissed the motion, claiming lack of jurisdiction.
We are inclined to believe that a circuit court judge in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit has jurisdiction to accept such a filing and to transfer it to the proper division of that circuit. See Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. Nevertheless, the motion filed by Mr. Hartsfield was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.700(a), which is not a rule allowing postconviction relief. If he intended to file the motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), his allegations are insufficient to entitle him to any relief. Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to Mr. Harts-field’s right to seek relief by filing a timely motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in the two relevant cases in Lee County.
Affirmed. ALTENBERND, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lane v. State, 913 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…e credit for time served. Reversed and remanded. . Lane sought relief below pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.700(a). Rule 3.700(a) is not a cognizable vehicle by which post-conviction relief may be obtained. Hartsfield v. State, 907 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Accordingly, we treat this appeal as if the motion had been filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Hurt v. State, 868 So. 2d 675, 675 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).…