MARTICE D. SPEARS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Clarify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
LaROSE, Judge.
Martice D. Spears challenges the post-conviction court’s denial of his motion' to clarify sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Without attaching any portions of the record to refute Mr. Spears’ claim, the post-conviction court denied the motion, concluding that Mr. Spears is entitled only to credit against each sentence for the time spent in jail for the charge that resulted in that sentence. See James v. State, 721 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
The burden is on the postconviction court to attach portions of the record refuting the rule 3.800(a) claim. Felder v. State, 828 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand for furthei proceedings. If the post-conviction court again denies Mr. Spears’ motion, it shall attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA, J., Concurs.
ALTÉNBERND, J., Concurs with opinion.
ALTENBERND, Judge,
Concurring.
I concur in this reversal, but would provide different instructions on remand. Mr. Spears did not file a facially sufficient motion under rule 3.800(a). He filed a “motion to clarify sentence” that makes no reference whatsoever to rule 3.800(a). He does not claim his sentence is illegal, and he does not affirmatively allege that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to an increased award of jail credit. This motion would not be timely under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Mr. Spears alleges that he served 341 days in jail “from June 20 till May 7, 2002.” Even if he means June 20, 2001, either his math is wrong or these dates are wrong. The ease numbers reveal that one of the cases was filed significantly later than the other two. It seems to me that before we place a burden on the trial court to “refute” Mr. Spears’ allegation, he has some obligation to allege a claim in compliance with the rules that bears some resemblance to the realities of his incarceration.
I agree that the trial court erred when it entered an order disposing of this motion on the merits. Rule 3.800(a) contains virtually no procedural advice to assist the defendant or the trial court. It does not even expressly authorize a defendant to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The district courts have not created any consistent, comprehensive set of procedures by case law. The order on appeal could possibly render Mr. Spears’ next motion successive. See Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him). It seems to me that such a motion should be dismissed, denied, or stricken as being facially insufficient without prejudice to the defendant’s right to file a facially sufficient motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…equivalent of jail.’ 909 So. 2d at 461. I disagree with this statement if the court meant to apply it to conditions of supervision that require a defendant to serve time in jail or its "functional equivalent,” such as boot camp. . Spears v. State, 920 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Friss v. State, 881 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); England v. State, 879 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that despite trial court’s lengthy explanation why it denied the defendant's motion to correct illegal sentence file…
-
Tyler v. State, 927 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…of the change of plea and sentencing hearing to conclusively refute Mr. Tyler’s claims. Consequently, we are compelled to reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for further proceedings. See Fla. RApp. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D); Spears v. State, 920 So. 2d 187, 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“The burden [*195] is on the postconviction court to attach portions of the record refuting the rule 3.800(a) claim.”). If the postconviction court again denies Mr. Tyler’s motion, it shall attach to its order those portions…
-
Daniels v. State, 944 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…was facially sufficient, the postconviction court failed to attach any record documents to support its [*1256] findings. “The burden is on the postcon-viction court to attach portions of the record refuting the rule 3.800(a) claim.” Spears v. State, 920 So. 2d 187, 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Therefore, we reverse the order denying the rule 3.800(a) motion and remand for entry of an order of dismissal without prejudice to any right Daniels may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion or a timely fa…
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
- Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- James v. State, 721 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Smith v. State, 828 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Felder v. State, 828 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)