FRANK HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Court affirmed denial of Rule 3.800(a) motion for additional credit for time served in one case but reversed and remanded three other cases for the trial court to enter proper credit calculations or provide documentation showing credit was already correctly applied.
A trial court's denial of a Rule 3.800(a) motion for additional credit for time served must be supported by sentencing orders and documentation, and remand is required when the record does not establish whether credit has been properly calculated.
[1] A trial court's order denying a Rule 3.800(a) motion for credit for time served must be accompanied by sentencing orders and documentation establishing the credit calcula…
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 intelligenceDefendant Hernandez entered pleas in four cases on the same disposition date, August 20, 2007, and moved for additional credit for time served under F…
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 Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of an order denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which claims that defendant-appellant Frank Hernandez is entitled to additional credit for time served. The State filed a response in the trial court in which the State calculates that the credit for time served in Miami-Dade County circuit court case No. 07-19631 is correct (seventy-four days). We affirm the trial court’s order as to that case.
However, the defendant entered pleas in three other cases on the same disposition date, August 20, 2007. The State’s response indicates that the defendant should be given varying amounts of credit for time served in the other three cases. The State’s response does not make the assertion that the defendant has actually received such credit. Neither the trial court’s denial order nor the State’s trial court response attached the judgments and sentencing orders. We therefore re verse the trial court’s order with regard to the remaining three cases and remand for entry of credit for time served in the three remaining cases. If that has already been done, and if those calculations are correct, the trial court may enter a new denial order and attach the sentencing orders and documentation conclusively refuting the defendant’s claim.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.