LEON E. ALLEN, 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.
Court reversed dismissal of successive motion for jail time credit where manifest injustice would occur and the State conceded entitlement to eighty-two days of credit under Gethers v. State.
A successive motion for jail time credit must be entertained on its merits when manifest injustice would result from dismissal, even if a prior identical claim was denied without appeal.
[1] A successive motion for jail time credit raising a previously rejected claim must be entertained on its merits when manifest injustice would otherwise result, notwithstan…
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 intelligence“a manifest injustice will occur if appellant's successive motion is not entertained on its merits”
Court's rationale for reversing dismissal despite successive nature of motion
Allen sought additional jail time credit for time spent in Broward and Dade County jails before sentencing on February 12, 2007. The trial court dismi…
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 Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Leon E. Allen appeals the trial court order dismissing his motion to correct sentence seeking additional jail time credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court relied on a response by the State of Florida arguing that the motion raised a claim previously rejected in an earlier motion for jail time credit, the denial of which was not appealed. While it is true that appellant did raise this claim previously, we find that a manifest injustice will occur if appellant’s successive motion is not entertained on its merits. State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003).
Appellant argued in his motion that he was entitled to additional jail time credit for time spent in Broward County Jail and mostly in Dade County Jail before his sentencing on February 12, 2007. He is entitled to credit for the time served in Dade County Jail on Dade County charges, as Broward County had issued and served a warrant for him for that time. He claimed entitlement to eighty days in his motion filed in the trial court. In the response to this Court’s order to show cause why relief should not be granted, the State of Florida advises that it does not dispute his entitlement to eighty-two days of credit, acknowledging his entitlement to jail credit under Gethers v. State, 838 So. 2d 504 (Fla.2003); see also Perez v. State, 967 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings on the merits of his motion for jail credit, applying Gethers.
Reversed and Remanded.
GROSS, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bronk v. State, 25 So. 3d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…er of law and a failure to correct that error would result in manifest injustice. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003); Cillo v. State, 913 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Lawton v. State, 731 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Allen v. State, 989 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (2006), provides in pertinent part that “the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time she or he spent in the county jail before sentence.” The statutory e…
-
Benny Arzola Martinez v. State, 216 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…only when the application of collateral estoppel would result in the defendant serving a longer illegal sentence than a restructured legal sentence imposed upon remand. See Brinson v. State, 995 So. 2d 1047, 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Allen v. State, 989 So. 2d 731, 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); King v. State, 974 So. 2d 632, 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Morrison v. State, 932 So. 2d 533, 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Where a defendant has been sentenced on multiple charges, there must come a time in which a facially illega…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Gethers v. State, 838 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2003)
- Perez v. State, 967 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Tobias Brown v. State, 967 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)