DELMAR VELASQUEZ, 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.
The court reversed the denial of a jail credit motion because the trial court failed to establish that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived entitlement to additional jail credit beyond what was specified in the plea agreement.
A written plea agreement specifying a certain amount of jail credit is insufficient to demonstrate that a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived entitlement to additional jail credit without evidence that the defendant was aware of such entitlement and voluntarily relinquished it.
[1] A plea agreement provision specifying jail credit does not constitute a knowing and voluntary waiver of additional jail credit entitlement absent evidence that the defend…
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 written notation in the plea agreement as to the amount of credit a defendant will receive is not sufficient to demonstrate that a defendant 'knowingly and voluntarily waived jail credit to which he would otherwise be legally entitled.'”
Explaining why the plea agreement alone cannot establish waiver of jail credit entitlement
Velasquez filed a motion for jail credit pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), seeking credit for dates beyond the 100 days specifi…
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 Waiver Of Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant challenges the denial of his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). For the reasons discussed below, we reverse.
The appellant’s motion was facially sufficient as he alleged the dates for which he is seeking credit, the date of his sentence, and where in the record entitlement to relief may be shown. See Thomas v. State, 634 So.2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA *9801994). The trial court did not attach sufficient record evidence refuting appellant’s entitlement to relief. Although the trial court attached the plea agreement, which specifically called for appellant to receive 100 days of credit (which the appellant was awarded), a written notation in the plea agreement as to the amount of credit a defendant will receive is not sufficient to demonstrate that a defendant “knowingly and voluntarily waived jail credit to which he would otherwise be legally entitled.” Davis v. State, 968 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). A stipulation to a specific amount of credit in a written plea agreement is not sufficient in the absence of eviderice “that the defendant knew of his entitlement to additional credit and voluntarily relinquished that right.” Id. at 1058. The record attachments do not indicate that appellant was aware of an entitlement to additional credit and voluntarily relinquished that right as part of his plea. Thus, the denial of appellant’s motion is REVERSED and REMANDED for the trial court to determine if the record demonstrates appellant’s right to the requested credit.
WOLF, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)…rovisions of plea agreements as cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See, e.g., Howard v. State, 40 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Rudicil v. State, 31 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Reddix v. State, 15 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Velasquez v. State, 11 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Giggetts v. State, 5 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Silverstein v. State, 654 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). . Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2)(D), which establishes appellate procedures for reviewing summary…
-
Villar v. State, 110 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…days of the mandate for this opinion. Affirmed. STEVENSON, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur. . The overruled cases include: Howard v. State, 40 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Rudicil v. State, 31 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Velasquez v. State, 11 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Giggetts v. State, 5 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Silverstein v. State, 654 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).…
-
Howard v. State, 40 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…t a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived credit to which he otherwise would be entitled “in the absence of evidence that the defendant knew of his entitlement to additional credit and voluntarily relinquished that right.” Velasquez v. State, 11 So. 3d 979, 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted); cf. Lahens v. State, 27 So. 3d 174, 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (finding Velasquez to be distinguishable where written plea agreement, stating that the defendant agreed to waive a full…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Gerda Jackson, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Davis v. State, 968 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)