MICHAEL J. ALLEN, JR., 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 appellate court reversed the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence, finding that the trial court failed to provide sufficient record support for its denial. The court emphasized that a simple notation on a plea sheet is not enough to show a knowing waiver of credit for time served.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred by summarily denying the motion without attaching the relevant record and that the notation on the plea sheet was insufficient to demonstrate a knowing and intelligent waiver of credit for time served.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence is facially sufficient if it alleges entitlement to additional jail time credit and the records attached to the motion demonstrate…
[2] A trial court denying a facially sufficient motion to correct an illegal sentence must provide valid reasons for the denial and attach portions of the record sufficient t…
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 intelligence“An order denying a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion should include not only ‘valid reasons for the denial by the trial court, but also attachments of portions of the record sufficient to support the denial.’”
Establishes the requirements for denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael J. Allen, Jr. moved to correct his sentence, claiming he was entitled to additional credit for 165 days served. The trial court summarily deni…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael J. Allen, Jr., appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. In his motion, Allen alleged that, following his plea, he was awarded credit for 297 days time served in the Palm Beach County jail at the Gun Club and Stockade facilities and that it was apparent from the face of his “court and jail records” that he was entitled to credit for an additional 165 days of credit for time served between May 1, 2008 and August 6, 2009. The trial court summarily denied the motion, referencing a handwritten notation on the plea sheet to the effect that “defendant agrees credit is correct.” We reverse.
Allen’s motion was facially sufficient. See Phillips v. State, 839 So.2d 893, 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Warren v. State, 980 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). “An order denying a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion should include not only ‘valid reasons for the denial by the trial court, but also attachments of portions of the record sufficient to support the denial.’ ” Macool v. State, 7 So.3d 637, 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (quoting Brown v. State, 816 So.2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)); see also Linder v. State, 54 So.3d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The trial court failed to attach the referenced plea sheet to the order of denial. And, even if the plea sheet had been attached, it would have been insufficient to establish Allen knowingly and intelligently waived his entitlement to the additional credit. See Howard v. State, 40 So.3d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“A stipulation as to a specific amount of credit is not sufficient to demonstrate that a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived credit to which he otherwise would be entitled ‘in the absence of evidence that the defendant knew of his entitlement to additional credit and voluntarily relinquished that right.’”) (quoting Velasquez v. State, 11 So.3d 979, 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)); see also Giggetts v. State, 5 So.3d 756, 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
Reversed, and Remanded.
GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henderson v. State, 199 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…efendant’s claim. “An order denying a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion should include not only valid reasons for the denial by the trial court, but also attachments of portions of the record sufficient to support the denial.” Allen v. State, 57 So. 3d 296, 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citation omitted). The state agrees that the proper remedy is to remand for the court to attach records which support its order. See Bennett v. State, 946 So. 2d 84, 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“[T]he state cannot cure the defe…
Authorities Cited
- Delmar Velasquez v. State, 11 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- In re T/U/W Albert Pollak v. Berkett, 816 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Brown v. State, 816 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Giggetts v. State, 5 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Schwartz v. State, 839 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Thomas v. State, 839 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Myers v. State, 980 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Howard v. State, 40 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Linder v. State, 54 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Hanna MacOol v. State, 7 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)