SHERRI RENFRO, 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 trial court mistakenly denied the motion on the theory that it was successive, and has not yet reviewed the motion on the merits.
Sherri Renfro filed a motion seeking jail time credit for time served in the Lake County jail, which was granted. She then filed a second motion seeki…
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 Correction Of Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
Sherri Renfro appeals the denial of her second rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail time credit. Because the trial court mistakenly denied the motion on the theory that it was successive, and because the trial court has, therefore, not yet reviewed the motion on the merits, we reverse.
Ms. Renfro, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, filed a rule 3.800(a) motion in 2005, seeking jail time credit for time she spent in the Lake County jail prior to her Lake County conviction. The trial court granted the motion, recalculated her jail credit, and awarded an additional 29 days of credit toward the service of her sentence.
In 2006, Ms. Renfro filed a second rule 3.800(a) motion, this time seeking an additional 70 days of jail credit for time she served in the Marion County jail. The trial court denied the motion apparently laboring under the misapprehension that it had denied Ms. Renfro’s first motion, and that Ms. Renfro did not take an appeal from that order. The State argues that Ms. Renfro is barred from filing a second motion by virtue of the doctrine of res judicata, even if the second motion raises an issue different than that raised in an earlier motion. The Florida Supreme Court has specifically held, however, that rule 3.800 allows a court to correct an illegal sentence “at any time,” and that “rule 3.800 expressly rejects application of res judicata principles to such motions.” See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 290 (Fla.2003); see also Pleasure v. State, 931 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
Ms. Renfro has raised a different claim in her second motion from that argued in her first motion. As the trial court has not addressed this claim on the merits, we reverse and remand to allow the trial court to reconsider the second claim.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hines v. State, 995 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…f Mr. Hines’ argument. We conclude that it did so in error. The second 3.800(a) motion was not an improper successive motion because it raised a different claim than that which was considered in the initial motion. Our decision in Renfro v. State, 944 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), authorized Mr. Hines’ second motion, and the trial court should, therefore, have considered the motion on the merits. Our supreme court has in this regard specifically underscored [*1143] that rule 3.800(a) allows a trial court…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Ladell M. Pleasure v. State, 931 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)