ARTURO VARELA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary denial of Rule 3.800(a) motion for credit for time served because trial court failed to attach records conclusively refuting defendant's claim.
A trial court cannot summarily deny a Rule 3.800(a) motion for credit for time served without attaching record excerpts that conclusively refute the defendant's claim.
[1] On appeal from summary denial of a postconviction motion, the appellate court must reverse unless the record conclusively shows the appellant is entitled to no relief, an…
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 intelligenceArturo Varela sought credit for 576 days of time served pursuant to his plea agreement, but the trial court awarded only 263 days and denied his motio…
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 Motion For Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On appeal from a summary denial, this Court must reverse unless the postconviction record, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
*399In his Rule 3.800(a) motion tiled below, Arturo Varela asserted that, according to his plea agreement, he is entitled to 576 days credit for time served. The trial court denied the motion, stating that he had previously received all credit for time served. The trial court, however, did not attach any records refuting Varela’s claim to such credit. In Varela’s motion for rehearing, he argued that he has only been awarded 263 days credit for time served and that a written sentencing order awarding him credit has not been entered in the violation of probation case. The trial court again summarily denied the motion without attaching documentation conclusively refuting appellant’s claims. Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the postconviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to the credit for time served.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniels v. State, 57 So. 3d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. Varela v. State, 29 So. 3d 398, 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). If the trial court enters an order summarily denying the postconviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to the credit for time served as sought. Revers…
-
Moya v. State, 66 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…hows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), and (D). Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. Varela v. State, 29 So. 3d 398, 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). If the trial court once again enters an order summarily denying the post-conviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts, including transcripts or jail cards, that conclusively show that the appellant is not entitl…