JESUS GONZALES, 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 erred by failing to address all claims for credit for time served, but affirmed the denial of claims that were addressed.
Jesus Gonzales appealed the summary denial of his motion for credit for time served. The postconviction court failed to address specific claims for cr…
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 Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
Jesus Gonzales appeals the summary denial of his motion seeking credit for time served, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the postconviction court’s order denying the claims it addressed; however, we remand this case to the postconviction court for further proceedings on the additional claims of credit that the court failed to address.
In its order denying Mr. Gonzales’s motion, the postconviction court failed to determine whether Mr. Gonzales is entitled to credit for fourteen days between January 2003 and February 2003, allegedly spent in the Hillsborough County jail, and for four months and two weeks between February 2003 and July 2003, allegedly spent in a south Florida evaluations and treatment facility. To the extent Mr. Gonzales’s allegations are true, he is certainly entitled to credit for time spent in the Hillsborough County jail between January and February 2003. He may also be entitled to credit for time spent in a treatment facility. See Tal-Mason v. State, 515 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla.1987) (holding that a defendant must be granted credit for time served “in any institution serving as the functional equivalent of a county jail”).
Because the postconviction court failed to address two of Mr. Gonzales’s claims for credit, we must remand this case for further proceedings.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAVIS and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.