WALTER RICHIE, 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.
Walter Richie appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming he was entitled to additional jail credit for time spent in Hillsborough County jail. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the denial of his jail credit claim and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the denial of his other claim.
The court reversed the summary denial of Richie's jail credit claim and remanded because disputed factual issues regarding jail credit can only be resolved under rule 3.850, and Richie's sworn, timely motion should have been treated as filed under that rule. The court affirmed the denial of claim three without further comment.
[1] A motion alleging entitlement to additional jail credit, which involves a disputed issue of fact, must be resolved under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
[2] A postconviction court should treat a sworn and timely filed motion to correct sentence as if filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 when the claim involves…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[J]ail credit issues involving disputed issues of fact can only be resolved pursuant to rule 3.850.”
Establishes the legal standard that disputed jail credit claims must be handled under rule 3.850 rather than summarily denied
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 18, 2005, Richie admitted to violating probation terms imposed in five Pinellas County circuit court cases. The trial court sentenced him to ti…
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 Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Walter Richie appeals the summary denial of claims one and three of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the postconviction court’s denial of claim three without comment. We reverse the denial of claim one and remand for further proceedings.
On May 18, 2005, Richie admitted to violating the terms of his probation imposed in five Pinellas County circuit court cases. The trial court sentenced Richie to time served for all counts in circuit court case CRC 97-04772CFANO-K and to 121 months’ prison on all counts in circuit court cases CRC 97-11794CFANO-K, CRC 97-15175CFAN O-K, CRC 97-15296CFANO-K, and CRC 97-15978CFA-NO-K, with all sentences to run concurrently with each other. The trial court also granted jail credit in the latter four cases, with the amount ranging between ninety and 145 days. In his motion, Richie claims that the trial court granted him only fifteen days’ jail credit but that he is entitled to an additional 800 days’ credit for time he spent in Hillsborough County jail. The postconviction court summarily denied Richie’s claim, finding that it was facially insufficient because he failed to provide proof of his Hillsborough County confinement.
“[J]ail credit issues involving disputed issues of fact can only be resolved pursuant to rule 3.850.” Mathis v. State, 945 So. 2d 588, 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Clifton v. State, 905 So. 2d 1042, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)). Because Richie’s claim for jail credit involves a disputed issue of fact and he filed his sworn motion within two years of his violation of probation sentence becoming final, the posteonvietion court should have treated his motion as filed pursuant to rule 3.850. See Rinderer v. State, 857 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (remanding the denial of a motion to correct sentence to the postconviction court to reconsider as if filed under rule 3.850 because the motion was sworn and timely under'the rule); see also Snell v. State, 890 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Richie’s claim and remand. On remand, the postconviction court shall attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Richie’s claim or, if necessary, hold an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
. ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reaves v. State, 970 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…s’ “claim for jail credit involves a disputed issue of fact and he filed his sworn motion within two years of his ... sentence becoming final, the postconviction court should have treated his motion as filed pursuant to rule 3.850.” Richie v. State, 959 So. 2d 433, 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); see also Rinderer v. State, 857 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (observing that the postconviction court has discretion to consider a sworn and facially sufficient motion under rule 3.850 even if improperly labeled as a rule…
-
Gooding v. State, 990 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…se Gooding’s claim involves a disputed issue of fact and because he has filed a sworn motion that is timely under rule 3.850, we reverse and remand for the post-conviction court to address the motion as if filed under that rule. See Richie v. State, 959 So. 2d 433, 433-34 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). On remand, the postconviction court shall attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Gooding’s claim or, if necessary, hold an evidentiary hearing. Reversed and remanded. ALTENBERND and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concu…
Authorities Cited
- Rinderer v. State, 857 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Clifton v. State, 905 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Cebert H. Snell v. State, 890 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Keyambay LEE v. State, 890 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Mathis v. State, 945 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)