WILLIAM C. WEAVER, 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.
William Weaver appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), challenging the amount of jail credit awarded. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly denied the jail credit claim without proper consideration of applicable law and the record.
The trial court's denial was reversed because it failed to properly apply the law and failed to attach conclusive portions of the record. Upon remand, the trial court must review the record to determine if it demonstrates on its face that Weaver is entitled to the requested jail credit and should consider awarding credit for time served in a foreign jurisdiction.
[1] A trial court must attach record portions conclusively showing a defendant is not entitled to relief when summarily denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
[2] When sentencing a defendant for violation of probation, a trial court shall allow credit for all time spent in county jail before sentencing, including time related to fo…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 trial court, when sentencing a defendant for violation of probation, shall allow credit for "all of the time" spent in the county jail before sentencing, including time spent related to former violations of probation in the same case”
Establishes that the trial court must grant credit for all jail time before sentencing on probation violations, which the trial court failed to do here.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeaver was sentenced and awarded 94 days of jail credit. He moved to correct his sentence, claiming he was entitled to 659 days of jail credit for tim…
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
The appellant challenges the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because the trial court denied the appellant’s claim for jail credit on an improper basis, we reverse the trial court’s denial of this claim and remand this case to the trial court for further consideration of the claim.
The appellant alleges that he is entitled to 659 days’ jail credit for total time served in the underlying offense and the two violations of probation, rather than the 94 days’ jail credit awarded at sentencing. The trial court summarily denied the motion, but improperly failed to attach to its order portions of the record conclusively showing that the defendant is not entitled to relief. See Walker v. State, 432 So.2d 727, 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
The trial court indicated that the appellant should not have been awarded credit for time served in the underlying offence or in the first violation of probation. However, in Griffin v. State, 828 So.2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), this Court held that a trial court, when sentencing a defendant for violation of probation, shall allow credit for “all of the time” spent in the county jail before sentencing, including time spent related to former violations of probation in the same case.
The appellant also alleges that he spent 219 days in jail in a foreign jurisdiction. Although awarding credit for time served in a foreign jurisdiction is completely within the discretion of the lower court, the record does not reflect the trial court’s understanding that it had the discretionary authority to award credit. See Kronz v. State, 462 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla.1985).
The trial court’s denial of the appellant’s claim for additional jail credit is accordingly reversed and this case is remanded for reconsideration of the claim. Upon remand, the trial court should review the trial court records in the appellant’s case to determine whether these records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to the requested jail credit, as they must before credit for time served may be granted under rule 3.800(a). If the trial court records demonstrate an entitlement to relief, the additional jail credit should be awarded. If they do not, the claim should be denied. If the record demonstrates that the appellant served time on this case in a foreign jurisdiction, the trial court should *383consider awarding credit and the record should reflect that consideration.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
KAHN, DAVIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kronz v. State, 462 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1985)
- Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Murray, 432 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Gore v. State, 828 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Griffin v. State, 828 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)