CLAUDE CANNON, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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 appellate court reversed the trial court's summary denial of habeas corpus relief regarding jail credit for time served on re-sentencing, finding the record insufficient to determine whether the defendant received proper credit.
A trial court's summary denial of habeas corpus relief must be supported by a sufficient record enabling appellate review of the defendant's claim for proper jail credit on re-sentencing.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging jail credit for time served must be accompanied by a sufficient record, including relevant hearing…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaude Cannon appealed a summary denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging whether he received proper credit for time served following re-sente…
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 Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
Defendant, Claude Cannon, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
On May 16, 2007, this court denied defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus as to gain time. In that order, this court requested the State respond to the remaining issue raised in the petition of whether or not the defendant received the proper credit for time served on re-sentencing. The State responded.
Upon review, we find that the trial court’s summary denial is devoid of any record attachment which would enable this court to determine the validity of the defendant’s claim that he did not receive proper credit for time served on re-sentencing. Specifically, there is no transcript of the violation of probation hearing and the sentencing documents only tell this court that the defendant gets jail credit “from 5/25/06 per court.” If what the defendant alleges in his petition for writ of habeas corpus on this issue is true, he may be entitled to more credit for time served and may be nearing the completion of his sentence. Therefore, we reverse the trial court solely on this issue, appoint the public defender’s office to assist the defendant in pursuing this claim in the trial court, and order the trial court to expedite review of this issue in light of our decision.
Reversed, appoint public defender, and remand for an expedited review.