TERRY STEWART, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PALMER, J.
Terry Stewart (defendant) appeals the trial court’s order which summarily denied his rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail credit.1 The trial court denied relief, stating that the defendant had sought the same credit in a prior 3.800(a) motion and in a letter addressed to the court. However, the trial court did not attach a copy of either the prior 3.800(a) motion or the order denying relief to its order. Although a trial court should deny a successive 3.800(a) motion, the trial court is required to attach the relevant portions of the record which demonstrate that the motion is successive. See Wallen v. State, 860 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to attach the appropriate documentation to show that defendant’s motion is successive.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PLEUS, C.J. and SHARP, W., J., concur. . See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Riffe v. State, 966 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail credit. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a). The State concedes that because the trial court failed to attach portions of the record to support denial of Riffe’s motion, we must reverse. See, e.g., Stewart v. State, 920 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (noting that when the trial court denies a 3.800 motion as successive, it “is required to attach the relevant portions of the record which demonstrate that the motion is successive.”). REVERSED AND REMANDED. THOMPSON and PLEU…
Authorities Cited
- Wallen v. State, 860 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)