HANNA MACOOL, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary denial of jail time credit motion because trial court failed to attach record evidence supporting its denial of a facially sufficient Rule 3.800(a) claim.
When a trial court denies a facially sufficient Rule 3.800(a) motion for jail credit, it must attach portions of the record refuting the defendant's claim or remand for further proceedings.
[1] A trial court denying a facially sufficient Rule 3.800(a) motion for jail credit must attach record portions supporting the denial or grant relief; summary denial without…
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“The rule places on the trial court the obligation to attach sufficient portions of the record to refute the defendant's claim.”
Explaining the procedural requirements for denying a facially sufficient Rule 3.800(a) motion.
Macool filed a motion for additional jail time credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), providing the dates for which he sought credi…
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 Record Attachments cases and more on FLexlaw
Hanna Macool appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for additional jail time credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Macool filed a facially sufficient claim for jail credit under rule 3.800 by providing the dates for which he is seeking credit, the date of his sentence, and alleging that the sentencing county’s jail record would show that he is entitled to the credit. Swanson v. State, 825 So.2d 507, 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The trial court denied Macool’s claim for additional credit, but failed to attach any record refuting his claim.
An order denying a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion should include not only “valid reasons for the denial by the trial court, but also attachments of portions of the record sufficient to support the denial. The rule places on the trial court the obligation to attach sufficient portions of the record to refute the defendant’s claim.” Brown v. State, 816 So.2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court to support its denial with record attachments or to grant relief. Should the court conclude that the motion cannot be decided on the face of the record, it should deny the motion without prejudice so that Macool may file a rule 3.850 motion, if one can be timely filed.
REVERSED and REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
PALMER, C.J., SAWAYA and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. State, 57 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…th DCA 2008). “An order denying a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion should include not only ‘valid reasons for the denial by the trial court, but also attachments of portions of the record sufficient to support the denial.’ ” Macool v. State, 7 So. 3d 637, 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (quoting Brown v. State, 816 So. 2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)); see also Linder v. State, 54 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The trial court failed to attach the referenced plea sheet to the order of denial. And, even…
Authorities Cited
- In re T/U/W Albert Pollak v. Berkett, 816 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Brown v. State, 816 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Swanson v. State, 825 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Renita West v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 825 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)