MITCHELL LADSON, 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 a motion for additional jail credit filed during the pendency of a direct appeal is unauthorized and must be stricken.
Appellant filed a pro se motion for additional jail credit while his direct appeal of his judgment and sentence was still pending. The circuit court d…
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 Motion For Additional Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mitchell Ladson appeals the circuit court’s denial of his pro se motion for additional jail credit. We reverse the denial of the motion and remand for the circuit court to strike the motion as unauthorized since Ladson’s direct appeal of his judgment and sentence is still pending in this court.
A motion for additional jail credit is normally a motion authorized by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Hines v. State, 842 So. 2d 999,1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However, rule 3.800(a) prohibits the filing of such a motion during the pendency of a direct appeal. See Day v. State, 770 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that effective January 13, 2000, a party may not file a rule 3.800(a) motion during the pendency of a direct appeal).
Because Ladson filed his motion during the pendency of the direct appeal of his judgment and sentence, Ladson’s motion was unauthorized. Therefore, the order of the circuit court denying the motion must be reversed and, on remand, the motion should be stricken as unauthorized. However, once this court decides Ladson’s direct appeal and issues a mandate, if Lad-son seeks further relief, he may file a rule 3.800(a) motion raising the same issue.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND, CASANUEVA, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCOY v. State, 942 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ere that charge is based on the same facts underlying the attempted first-degree murder charge. To allow the convictions for both charges to stand would violate double jeopardy. See Gordon v. State, 780 So. 2d 17, 25 (Fla.2001); McGlocklin v. State, 907 So. 2d 1288, 1291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Jackson v. State, 868 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Deangelo v. State, 863 So. 2d 374, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). On remand, therefore, the trial court must vacate the attempted felony murder conviction and ensure that thi…
-
Scott v. State, 976 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…Mr. Scott filed the motion on July 7, 2007, while the direct appeal of his judgment and sentence in the same case was pending. Thus, the postconviction court improperly denied the motion rather than striking it as unauthorized. See Ladson v. State, 907 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). We reverse and remand for the postconviction court to strike the unauthorized motion. Once the mandate issues on his direct appeal, Mr. Scott may file a rule 3.800(a) motion on the same issue should he seek further relief. See id…
-
Trellez v. State, 909 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…itness, the attorneys would be allowed to ask follow-up questions. This court has previously held that the procedure established by this trial judge is within the trial judge’s discretion and is not an abuse of discretion. See McGlocklin v. State, 907 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), and cases cited. The juror questions specifically asked of the defendant were not properly objected to or preserved for appellate review and were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we find that the trial judge’s proce…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DAY v. State, 770 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Roach v. State, 842 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)