MIGUEL JOSE GALLINAT, 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.
Gallinat appealed the denial of his motion for additional jail credit time under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The court reversed and remanded because the trial court summarily denied the motion without attaching records necessary to evaluate his entitlement to jail credit.
The court held that Gallinat's motion was legally sufficient and that the trial court could not summarily deny it without either demonstrating from the face of court records that he was not entitled to relief, or denying relief while attaching available records to allow him to pursue alternative remedies.
[1] A motion for jail credit time under Rule 3.800(a) is legally sufficient if the entitlement to credit can be determined from the face of court records.
[2] If a motion for jail credit time cannot be determined from the face of the records, the court may deny relief after attaching available records, and the movant may pursue…
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“His entitlement to credit for jail time may be determined from the face of court records which demonstrate Gallinat is not entitled to the relief requested, or that he should be granted the relief. Or, if the issue cannot be determined based on the face of the records at hand, the court may deny relief after attaching the records available and Gallinat shall be without prejudice to file a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, or seek other remedies.”
Establishes the proper procedure for deciding Rule 3.800(a) motions—trial courts must either determine entitlement from records or attach records when denying relief.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGallinat was convicted and incarcerated in county jail awaiting sentencing during two periods: October 13, 2002 to January 16, 2003 and August 25, 200…
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) cases and more on FLexlaw
Gallinat appeals from the circuit court’s order which summarily denied his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which he seeks an award of additional jail credit time. The lower court attached no records to its order. We reverse and remand. In his motion, Gallinat alleges he was incarcerated in the county jail awaiting sentencing on the charges for which he was convicted in the case on the following dates: October 13, 2002 to January 16, 2003 and August 25, 2003 to May 12, 2004. Based on these calculations, Gallinat served a total of 358 days in the county jail awaiting judgment and sentencing. Elsewhere in his motion he alleges he should have received 11 months and 28 days jail credit time.
Gallinat also alleges the trial court imposed a prison term of three years, one month and fifteen days. He concludes that because the court failed to award him credit for all of the jail time to which he is entitled, he has been caused to serve “approximately” five months and sixteen days longer than had the jail time been properly credited.
We conclude that Gallinat’s motion is legally sufficient. His entitlement to credit for jail time may be determined from the face of court records which demonstrate Gallinat is not entitled to the relief requested, or that he should be granted the relief. Or, if the issue cannot be determined based on the face of the records at hand, the court may deny relief after attaching the records available and Gallinat shall be without prejudice to file a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, or seek other remedies. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998); Atwood v. State, 765 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
We en banc this case because we recede from any inference in Hankerson v. State, 864 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) that holding an evidentiary hearing is proper to resolve matters raised in motions filed pursuant to Rule 3.800(a). We reaffirm this court’s position on this issue, as expressed in Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PLEUS, C.J., PETERSON, GRIFFIN, THOMPSON, PALMER, ORFINGER, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur. SAWAYA, J., concurs specially with opinion.
SAWAYA, J.,
concurring specially.
I agree that we should recede from Hankerson v. State, 864 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), to the extent that it implies an evidentiary hearing is appropriate to resolve issues raised in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). As to the remainder of the opinion, I concur in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…aim for additional jail credit, we reverse and remand this matter with directions that the trial court either grant the relief McIntosh seeks or attach supporting documents to refute McIntosh’s claim. Id. at 511-12. Similarly, in Gallinat v. State, 909 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), we held: Gallinat appeals from the circuit court’s order which summarily denied his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which he seeks an award of additional jail credit time. The lower cour…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Forrest Atwood v. State, 765 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Fritzner v. State, 864 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Hankerson v. State, 864 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)