SHAWN RUTIG, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2009-10-02
No. 5D09-1649
MONACO, C.J., LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.
18 So. 3d 712 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2009) Positive Treatment
Cited by 14 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Shawn Rutig appeals the denial of his motion for additional jail credit filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court explained in its order that Appellant’s sentences are to run concurrently, and Appellant is not entitled to any additional time. However, the trial court did not attach to its order the portions of the record that refute Appellant’s claim. Therefore, we are prevented from concluding that Appellant’s claim has been conclusively refuted by the record. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D); LeBlanc v. State, 997 So.2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Accordingly, the instant matter is remanded to the trial court for the attachment of records which conclusively refute Appellant’s claim that Appellant is entitled to additional jail credit.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

MONACO, C.J., LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • R.T., SR. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 27 So. 3d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
    …ing the child dependent or by making separate findings of fact ... § 39.6221(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). The father contends that reversal is required because the instant guardianship order fails to comply with this mandate. We agree. In In re J.S., 18 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), the mother appealed an order placing her children into a permanent guardianship arrangement. In the order, the trial court made certain findings, including the finding that: 11. Reunification with the parents at this time would…
  • …orm order to assist judges in granting a permanent guardianship may be appropriate but not at the omission of the information that the statute requires the trial court to specify. See § 39.6221(2); see also J.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 18 So. 3d 712, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Subsection 39.6221(5) explains that the entry of a permanent guardianship requires the court to “discontinue regular review hearings” and it relieves the Department “of the responsibility for supervising the placement of th…
  • C.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 41 So. 3d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
    …n order did not comply with section 39.6221(2), which requires case-specific findings. See C.A. v. Dept, of Children & Families, 27 So. 3d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); R.T. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 27 So. 3d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); In re: J.S., 18 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); In re: R.B., 6 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); A.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 5 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The state also concedes, and we agree, that the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to supp…

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw