ROBERT PARSONS, 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 held that the postconviction court's order and attachment did not conclusively refute the defendant's allegations regarding jail credit.
[1] A motion for jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) must be granted if the allegations are not conclusively refuted by the record.
[2] A postconviction court must attach documents that conclusively refute a defendant's claim for jail credit when summarily denying a motion.
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 intelligenceThe defendant was arrested without a warrant for a probation violation and other charges, and he alleged he did not receive sufficient jail credit for…
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
Robert Parsons filed a motion pursuant to -Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) alleging that he had not been awarded sufficient jail credit after he was arrested without a warrant in Highlands County for a violation of his Polk County probation (VOP). Because the postconviction court’s order and attachment do not conclusively refute Parsons’ allegations, we reverse and remand.
Parsons attached documents to his motion demonstrating that he was stopped by Highlands County sheriffs deputies and arrested for driving under the influence at approximately 2:30 a.m. on September 14, 2008. At that time, the investigating deputy also arrested him for violating the curfew condition of his probation.1 The booking report demonstrates that Parsons was held in the Highlands County jail on the VOP with no bond. When Parsons was ultimately sentenced in Polk County for the probation violation on December 5, 2008, he was awarded an unspecified amount of credit for the time spent in the Highlands County jail. According to his 3.800(a) motion, however, he did not actually receive all of the credit he was due from the date of his warrantless arrest in Highlands County.
In denying Parsons’ motion for additional jail credit, the postconviction court attached a copy of an arrest warrant that appears to relate to a 2007 probation violation rather than the 2008 warrantless arrest and subsequent incarceration for which Parsons claims credit. This attachment does not conclusively refute Parsons’ allegation; therefore, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the motion. If the postconviction court again enters an order summarily denying the motion, it must attach documents conclusively refuting Parsons’ claim.
Reversed and remanded.
WALLACE and CRENSHAW, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.J. v. State, 40 So. 3d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…854 So. 2d 737, 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Here, the officers discussed only general conditions which caused them to be particularly careful. These, in and of themselves, are insufficient to show a particularized concern. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. State, 16 So. 3d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (pat down based upon generalized concern for officer safety with no suspicion that particular defendant is armed or dangerous is constitutionally impermissible). They testified that they had no information or suspicion that E.J. h…
-
COX v. State, 218 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…istrict reversed, highlighting that the appellant had actually been arrested in Seminole County via a warrantless arrest for the Marion County probation violation,1 which the trial court may have overlooked. Id. at 729-30; see also Parsons v. State, 16 So. 3d 317, 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversing denial of motion for jail credit where record did not conclusively refute the appellant’s claim that he did not receive all the credit he was due from the date of his [*455] warrantless arrest in county of new law…