HENRY E. MILLS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2005-09-19
No. 1D05-1585
KAHN, C.J., WOLF and PADOVANO, concur.
911 So. 2d 850 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2005) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order denying the motion, but do so without prejudice to appellant’s refiling his jail credit claim in a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion. See Burch field v. State, 907 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

AFFIRMED.

KAHN, C.J., WOLF and PADOVANO, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Murphy v. State, 930 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
    …n that he is entitled to additional jail credit pursuant to Gethers v. State, 838 So. 2d 504 (Fla.2003). Contrary to the trial court’s determination, jail credit claims are cognizable in motions filed pursuant to rule 3.850. See e.g. Mills v. State, 911 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Therefore, because the trial court failed to attach record portions that refute the appellant’s facially sufficient claim for additional jail credit the denial of this claim was also error. Further, contrary to the state’s asser…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw