STACY SCOTT, 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.
Scott appealed the trial court's summary denial of her rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief seeking additional jail credit for time spent in out-of-county jails. The appellate court reversed, holding that Scott was entitled to a hearing on her claim because her motion was sufficient on its face and her allegations were not conclusively refuted by the record.
Scott was entitled to a hearing on her rule 3.850 motion because the motion was sufficient on its face and her allegations were not conclusively refuted by the record. The trial court erred in relying on State v. Mancino, a rule 3.800 case with a different burden of proof, to summarily deny a rule 3.850 motion.
[1] A claim for jail credit that cannot be resolved from the face of the record may be pursued in a sworn motion for postconviction relief.
[2] A trial court must grant a hearing on a motion for postconviction relief unless the allegations are conclusively refuted by the record.
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“She is entitled to a hearing to prove her allegations unless they are conclusively refuted by the record, in which case the trial court must attach the record documents that refute the claim.”
Establishes the legal standard for rule 3.850 motions—defendant is entitled to a hearing unless allegations are conclusively refuted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott was arrested in Miami on Putnam County charges and was continuously held in two different jails on those charges. At sentencing, she did not rec…
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 Sworn Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
This is the second time we have had Appellant’s jail credit issue before us. The first time was in an appeal from the denial of a rule 3.800 motion. We affirmed there because the claim, which involves time Appellant allegedly spent in jails outside of Putnam County, could not be resolved from the “face of the record.” We expressly stated that our decision was “without prejudice to [Appellant’s] right to seek additional jail credit in a sworn motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.” Scott v. State, 993 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
Thereafter, Appellant sought relief in a sworn rule 3.850 motion. Appellant’s claim is straight-forward. She states that she was arrested in Miami on the Putnam County charges at issue, was continuously held in two different jails on those charges, but did not get credit for that time when she was sentenced. She claims that she is owed an additional ninety-one days of jail credit. The trial court summarily denied Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion because the attachment to the motion was “illegible” and the file “does not conclusively show that the defendant is due such additional credit.” The trial court relied upon State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998). Unfortunately, the trial court was confused and further proceedings are still needed here to get to the bottom of this issue.
Maneino is a rule 3.800 case, where the burden is on a defendant to show that the sentence is illegal because the “face of the record” evinces that jail credit was not given when the sentence was imposed. Here, Appellant’s rule 3.800 motion was properly denied because her entitlement to the credit could not be discerned from the face of the record.1 Now, she has filed a rule 3.850 motion that is sufficient on its face. She is entitled to a hearing to prove her allegations unless they are conclusively refuted by the record, in which case the trial court must attach the record documents that refute the claim. Murphy v. State, 930 So.2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
We asked the State to respond here, hopeful that it might assist this Court in bringing this over-litigated dispute to a conclusion. Instead of addressing the merits of Appellant’s claim, the State contended that this appeal is untimely. The State’s position, however, is without merit because of the tolling effect of Appellant’s timely filed motion for rehearing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frierson v. State, 114 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…ellant’s postcon-viction motion seeks correction of his sen-fencing documents so that the Department will apply the proper credit, thereby enforcing the plea agreement. This is a claim properly raised in the postconviction court. See Scott v. State, 19 So. 3d 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). The trial court, in reviewing the appellant’s motion and dismissing it, appears to mistakenly believe that the appellant is only challenging the Department of. Corrections’ failure to properly credit his sentence with all of th…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Gethers v. State, 838 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2003)
- Murphy v. State, 930 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Scott v. State, 993 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)