CHARLES H. MCINTOSH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jail Credit Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Charles H. McIntosh appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion seeking additional jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In the motion filed with the trial court, McIntosh alleged that he was awarded one hundred forty-six days credit, but was entitled to an additional ninety-nine days, and listed the specific dates that he was seeking. ,The trial court summarily denied the motion without explanation or supporting attachments.
When a rule 3.800(a) motion states a legally sufficient claim for additional jail credit, a summary denial requires supporting attachments. Washington v. State, 890 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Friss v. State, 881 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Because the trial court failed to attach sufficient portions of the record to refute McIntosh’s claim 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.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PLEUS, C.J., SAWAYA and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…rary in the concurring opinion are simply wrong. Moreover, this court has rendered opinions clearly indicating that allegations far less specific and detailed than those in Petscher’s motion are legally sufficient. For example, in McIntosh v. State, 914 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), we held: Charles H. McIntosh appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion seeking additional jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In the motion filed with the trial court, McIntosh al…
-
Tatum v. State, 27 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…e decision and accompanying mandate in Tatum, the trial court had the option of denying Defendant’s motion and attaching portions of the record conclusively showing that Defendant is not entitled to relief, or granting the motion. McIntosh v. State, 914 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Because the trial court has not yet taken either course, we grant the motion and direct the trial court to promptly comply with our previously-issued mandate. Tatum v. State, 994 So. 2d 1231, 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). On August…
-
Tatum v. State, 994 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…e decision and accompanying mandate in Tatum, the trial court had the option of denying Defendant’s motion and attaching portions of the record conclusively showing that Defendant is not entitled to relief, or granting the motion. McIntosh v. State, 914 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Because the trial court has not yet taken either course, we grant the motion and direct the trial court to promptly comply with our previously-issued mandate. Motion granted.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Friss v. State, 881 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Alford v. State, 890 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)