ROSS ORTA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Additional Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion seeking additional jail credit because the motion was facially insufficient. Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to Appellant’s right to re-file his motion in a manner that specifies the dates for which Appellant claims an entitlement to additional jail credit. See Santiago v. State, 22 So.3d 789, 789-90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[T]he motion must affirmatively allege that the trial court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief. A mere conclusory allegation that the answer lies in the record is insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of the rule.”); Williams v. State, 4 So.3d 728, 729 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“Although a jail credit claim may be raised by use of a 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence, the movant must demonstrate that the record shows an entitlement to additional jail credit, as well as a sentence that fails to grant such credit.”).
AFFIRMED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 53 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…aim because as alleged it is facially insufficient, our affirmance is without prejudice to Jones’ filing a facially sufficient motion seeking any credit due him for the time he spent in juvenile detention prior to his convictions. See Orta v. State, 41 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Affirmed. MORRIS and KHOUZAM, JJ„ Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Santiago v. State, 22 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Williams v. State, 4 So. 3d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)