MARK BROWN, 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 appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion for jail credit because the motion was facially insufficient.
[1] A motion for jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is facially insufficient if it does not allege that court records demonstrate the defendant's e…
[2] A trial court must attach records to a facially sufficient order denying jail credit that conclusively refute the defendant's claim.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought jail credit for time served, alleging the trial court failed to award it. The trial court denied the motion, finding the appellant wa…
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) Motion For Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
[*62] CASANUEVA, Judge.
Mark Brown appeals the denial of the trial court’s order denying his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm, although not for the reasons stated in the order by the trial court.
Brown’s motion alleged that he is entitled to 62 days’ jail credit for time spent in Pasco County Jail from March 23, 2004, to April 15, 2004, and from October 22, 2004, to November 30, 2004. Brown’s motion further alleged that the trial court failed to award him any credit for time served. The trial court denied the motion on the merits and concluded that Brown waived his right to credit for time served when he accepted a plea offer of 364 days’ incarceration with no credit for time served and rejected an offer of 18 months’ prison with 62 days’ jail credit.
We affirm the trial court’s order because Brown’s motion is facially insufficient. See Gilbert v. State, 805 So. 2d 70, 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that a rule 3.800(a) motion that does not allege that the court records show the defendant’s entitlement to additional jail credit is facially insufficient). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Brown’s right to refile a facially sufficient motion for jail credit pursuant to rule 3.800(a). Such motion will not be considered successive.
If Brown’s motion were facially sufficient, we would have been obligated to reverse the trial court’s order because it failed to attach any records to the order to conclusively refute Brown’s claim. The trial court did not attach the signed plea agreement or the transcript of the plea colloquy showing that Brown agreed to waive the requested jail credit. See Reed v. State, 810 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that the trial “court records must establish the defendant’s clear intent to waive a portion of his” accrued jail time in order to deny a facially sufficient motion for additional jail credit on the grounds of a waiver).
Affirmed.
VILLANTI and WALLACE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ate, 763 So. 2d 480, 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).2 . If Petscher's motion was facially sufficient, I agree that we would be obligated to reverse the trial court's order because it failed to attach any records to refute Petscher's claim. Brown v. State, 912 So. 2d 61, 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). . Because of the conclusion that Petscher’s rule 3.800(a) motion was facially insufficient, I do not address the substantive issues set forth in the dissent.…
-
Santiago v. State, 22 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…THOUT PREJUDICE. GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur. . If Santiago's motion was facially sufficient, we would be obligated to reverse the trial court’s order because it failed to attach any records to refute Santiago's claim. Brown v. State, 912 So. 2d 61, 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).…
Authorities Cited
- Kalishea Reed v. State, 810 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Gilbert v. State, 805 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)