SALVATORE BURRIESCI, 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 illegal sentence was legally insufficient because it failed to demonstrate entitlement to jail credit from the trial court's records.
Salvatore Burriesci appealed the denial of his motion for additional jail credit for time served under a detainer. He had previously filed a similar m…
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 Legally Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Salvatore Burriesci appeals a trial court order summarily denying his amended motion to correct illegal sentence seeking additional jail credit for time served out of the county pursuant to a detainer from Broward County, Florida. He previously sought additional jail credit in a motion to correct illegal sentence, which appears to have included claims for the same period of time and on the same basis. That motion was summarily denied by the trial court, and he did not appeal.
The State argues that appellant is collaterally estopped from applying for the same relief in a successive motion to correct. It is not clear in this ease whether the trial court rejected the previous motion as successive, barred by collateral estoppel, or whether it denied relief on the merits of appellant’s claims. Also, if appellant were entitled to additional jail credit, he could argue that denial of his claims constituted a manifest injustice, an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel. State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 291-292 (Fla.2003).
We find that the amended motion was legally insufficient because it failed to show that appellant was entitled to additional jail credit based on factual matters ascertainable from the trial court’s records. See Harnage v. State, 946 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). However, affir-mance is without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a rule 3.850 motion within thirty (30) days of issuance of this Court’s opinion raising this claim. Decoste v. State, 898 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
Affirmed without Prejudice.
GUNTHER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cortez King v. State, 974 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…explicitly waive his right to credit for prison time served for a first degree felony. See Silverstein v. State, 654 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (holding that a waiver of prison time must be voluntary and specific). See also Burriesci v. State, 955 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (explaining that denial of a claim of an entitlement to additional jail credit may constitute a manifest injustice, which is an exception to the procedural bar of collateral estoppel); Isom v. State, 915 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2…
-
Marketta Maloy v. State, 984 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…e sufficient allegations to warrant reversal. As such, we affirm the lower court’s denial, but without prejudice to appellant seeking relief pursuant to rule 3.850, if such relief would be timely and non-successive. See generally Burriesci v. State, 955 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). SHAHOOD, C.J., WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Decoste v. State, 898 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Crespo v. State, 946 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)