LAWRENCE MONTAGUE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2006-07-28
No. 2D06-971
DAVIS and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
933 So. 2d 1282 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2006)

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the denial of jail credit for time served in Hernando County due to lack of evidence of a warrant or detainer, but reversed and remanded for reconsideration of credit for time served in Hillsborough County.


Facts & Procedural History

Lawrence Montague appealed the denial of his motion for additional jail credit. He claimed credit for time spent in Hernando County jail and Hillsboro…

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.


Opinion of the Court
SALCINES, Judge.

[*1283] SALCINES, Judge.

Lawrence Montague appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his motion for additional jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Montague claims he is entitled to additional jail credit in Hillsborough County case number 89-02618 for the time he spent in Hernando County jail from November 29, 1994, to January 5, 1995, and for the time he spent in Hillsborough County jail from January 6, 1995, to February 20, 1995.

Because Montague failed to provide any record evidence that either a warrant or a detainer was lodged against him from Hillsborough County while he was in jail in Hernando County, we affirm the postcon-viction court’s decision as to this claim, without prejudice to Montague’s right to refile his motion showing entitlement to additional jail time credit pursuant to Gethers v. State, 838 So. 2d 504 (Fla.2003). See Smith v. State, 884 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

However, the postconviction court failed to address, and the attachments to the postconviction court’s order do not conclusively refute, Montague’s claim that he did not receive credit for the time he spent in Hillsborough County jail from January 6, 1995, to February 20, 1995. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postcon-viction court to reconsider Montague’s claim. On remand, if the postconviction court summarily denies the claim, it must set forth its reasoning and attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Montague’s allegation. See Carroll v. State, 914 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); O’Neill v. State, 861 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

DAVIS and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw