MICHAEL S. CLARK, 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 court held that the motion to correct an illegal sentence was facially insufficient because it failed to allege the error was apparent from the record.
Michael S. Clark sought prison credit for time served in one case, alleging it should apply to sentences in other cases scored on the same scoresheet.…
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 Tripp V. State cases and more on FLexlaw
LaROSE, Judge.
Michael S. Clark appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the postconviction court’s order without prejudice to any right Mr. Clark may have to refile a facially sufficient motion for prison credit under rule 3.800(a).
In his motion, Mr. Clark claimed that he was entitled to prior prison credit pursuant to Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993). Mr. Clark alleged that on August 29, 2005, after violating the probation imposed in September 1999 in circuit court cases 1999-CF-1497, 1999-CF-1506, and 1999-CF-1508, he was sentenced to twenty-one months in prison with credit for time served in all three cases. However, Mr. Clark alleged that he received credit only for time spent in county jail and did not receive credit for time spent in prison for circuit court case 1999-CF-1507. Relying on Tripp, Mr. Clark alleged that his prior prison credit in case 1999-CF-1507 should apply towards his twenty-one-month prison sentences in the other cases because the trial court scored each on the same scoresheet when Mr. Clark was originally sentenced.
The postconviction court summarily denied Mr. Clark’s rule 3.800(a) motion without explanation or supporting attachments. However, Mr. Clark’s claim is facially insufficient because he fails to allege that the error is apparent from the face of the record and fails to allege that the court records demonstrate that he is entitled to relief. See Stathas v. State, 852 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that petitioner’s claim that he was entitled to jail time credit was facially insufficient). Consequently, we affirm the postconviction court’s order without prejudice to any right Mr. Clark may have to refile a facially sufficient motion for prison credit under rule 3.800(a). Id. Any such motion will not be considered successive.
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and VILLANTI, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lloyd v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…e court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief. We, therefore, affirm the postconviction court’s order as to prison time without prejudice to Lopez filing a timely and facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion. See Clark v. State, 932 So. 2d 364, 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.…
Authorities Cited
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)
- Stathas v. State, 852 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)