DWIGHT ROSS, 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 a claim for jail credit requiring factual determinations beyond the face of the record cannot be resolved under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Dwight Ross was sentenced to prison with credit for 430 days served. He filed a motion seeking additional credit for 65 days he believed were not acco…
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
Dwight Ross appeals from the order denying his motion to correct sentencing error filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He argues that he is entitled to additional credit for time he served in county jail awaiting sentencing.
As part of a plea agreement, Ross received a sentence of fifteen years and nine months in state prison with credit for time served. The judgment rendered on March 19, 2008, reflects that he was sentenced to fifteen years and nine months with “a total of 430 days as credit for time incarcerated before imposition of this sentence.” Ross filed a “motion for additional jail credit time” arguing that he was entitled to credit for an additional sixty-five days he spent in county jail. He specified the dates that he was in county jail that he believed were not reflected in the sentence. The trial court denied his motion.
A claim for credit for jail time served is cognizable as a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a) provided the claim can be determined from the face of the record. We find the resolution of Ross’s jail credit claim requires factual determinations that are not apparent in the record and thus cannot be resolved in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Ericson v. State, 932 So.2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the rule 3.800(a) motion without prejudice to Ross’s right to file within thirty days from the date of the mandate a rule 3.850 motion to determine whether he is entitled to additional jail credit. See Renaud v. State, 926 So.2d 1241, 1242 (Fla.2006) (“When the alleged illegality of the sentence is not apparent on the face of the record, a rule 3.850 motion is the only available remedy.”).
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gabrial Rios v. State, 87 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…nty Sheriff five months to complete the purely ministerial act of arresting Rios while he was detained in the DeSoto County Jail, this court cannot determine whether Rios is entitled to additional credit without more record facts. See Ross v. State, 37 So. 3d 912, 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding that the entitlement to additional jail time credit in a rule 3.800(a) motion must be apparent from the face of the record). Because Rios’ motion was sworn and filed within two years from the date that his sentence b…
Authorities Cited
- Wilmann Renaud v. State, 926 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2006)
- Ericson v. State, 932 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- A.G. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 932 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)