JOHN CLARK DANIELS, 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 postconviction court erred in summarily denying the motion without attaching record documents and that the motion was facially insufficient.
Appellant sought jail credit for 347 days, alleging sentences should be coterminous. The postconviction court denied the motion on the merits.…
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 Facially Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
John Clark Daniels appeals the summary denial of his motion to define and clarify sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand with instructions.
Daniels alleges that he is entitled to 347 days’ jail credit in circuit court cases 01-04946-CFAWS, 02-02300-CFAWS, 02-03807-CFAWS, and 02-03748-CFAWS, thereby making the sentences coterminous. The postconviction court denied the motion on the merits. We reverse the postconviction court’s order because Daniels’ motion is facially insufficient. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a); see also Stathas v. State, 852 So. 2d 881, 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that petitioner’s claim that he was entitled to jail time credit was facially insufficient where petitioner failed to allege that court records demonstrated his entitlement to additional jail credit).
Even if Daniels’ motion was facially sufficient, the postconviction court failed to attach any record documents to support its 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 facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion. Such motion shall not be considered successive.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
SALCINES and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stathas v. State, 852 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Martice D. Spears v. State, 920 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)