GERALD BOYD, 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 trial court must conclusively negate a jail credit claim by attaching supporting record evidence, and summary denial is insufficient without it.
[1] A motion for jail credit is legally sufficient if it affirmatively alleges where in the record the information can be located and explains how the record demonstrates ent…
[2] Once a movant makes a legally sufficient allegation of not receiving proper credit for time served, the trial court must conclusively negate the claim by attaching the po…
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 intelligenceAppellant claimed he was shorted two days of jail credit. His motion was legally sufficient, but the trial judge summarily denied it without attaching…
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 Summary Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
In this rule 3.800 jail credit case, Appellant made a claim that he had been shorted two days of jail credit for the time he spent in the county jail between his arrest and sentencing. Appellant’s motion was straight-forward. He gave the date on which he had been arrested for the charges in Putnam County, and he claimed that he had been continuously incarcerated in the Putnam County jail on these charges from that date until the date on which he was sentenced. This motion was legally sufficient because it affirmatively alleged “where in the record the information [could] be located and explain[ed] how the record demonstrate^] entitlement to relief.” Petscher v. State, 936 So.2d 639, 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (Orfinger, J., concurring). The trial judge summarily denied the request, concluding that the “[c]ourt file does not show conclusively he was given the wrong number of day’s credit.” The trial judge offered no further explanation, nor did he attach records to negate the claim. We reverse.
Once the movant makes a legally sufficient allegation that he did not receive the proper credit for time served, it is the trial court’s obligation to conclusively negate the claim by attaching the portion of the record to refute the claim. Cheatum v. State, 992 So.2d 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). This is because we only receive an abbreviated record in proceedings of this nature, and we are required by rule 9.141(b)(2)(D) to reverse any summary denial unless the record “shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief....”
Although we would ordinarily remand this case to the trial court to either grant the relief or provide the proper support for his decision to deny relief, in this case, the State has spared the court system any further burden by candidly conceding that an apparent mathematical error occurred, and that Appellant is entitled to the two additional days of jail credit.
*269Accordingly, we remand this case with instructions to credit Appellant with two additional days.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MONACO, C.J., and LAWSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hagans v. State, 114 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…ate, 89 So. 3d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Jarrett was denied relief because he filed a facially insufficient motion; he failed to specifically identify where the face of the record demonstrated his entitlement to relief. Id. at 294; see Boyd v. State, 57 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Here, by contrast, Hagans’s motion is facially sufficient.…
-
McFARLANE v. State, 155 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). If the trial court relies on a portion of the court file not contained in the postcon-viction record, it is incumbent upon the .trial court to make those portions of the court file part of the record. See Boyd v. State, 57 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the postconviction motion, the trial court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. Reversed and remanded…
Authorities Cited
- Petscher v. State, 936 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Cheatum v. State, 992 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)