FELIX CABRERA, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2011-06-01

No. 4D10-2161

HAZOURI, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

62 So. 3d 1171 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2011) Positive Treatment

Cited by 9 cases

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.

Synopsis

Felix Cabrera appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion seeking credit for jail time served in St. Lucie County against his Broward County sentence. The court affirmed the denial, holding that Cabrera's motion failed to meet the requirement of affirmatively alleging that court records demonstrate entitlement to relief on their face.

Holding

The trial court properly denied the motion because it did not affirmatively allege where Broward County records would demonstrate entitlement to relief or adequately identify the location of supporting documentation. Under rule 3.800(a), claims of error that cannot be established without relying on facts not evident on the face of the record cannot be adjudicated under that rule.

Headnotes

[1] A motion for jail time credit under rule 3.800(a) requires the movant to affirmatively allege that court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief.

[2] A claim for jail time credit that cannot be established without relying on facts not evident on the face of the record cannot be adjudicated under rule 3.800(a).

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

Key Quotes

“A motion for jail time credit is cognizable under rule 3.800(a) only if the movant "affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief."”
Establishes the foundational requirement for rule 3.800(a) motions

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Cabrera was arrested in St. Lucie County in February 2006 and served with a violation of probation warrant related to a Broward County case. Over a ye…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Rule 3.800(A) Motion Rule 3.850 Motion Jail Credit Consecutive Sentences

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 3.800(A) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Felix Cabrera (Defendant) appeals an order of the Broward County circuit court, summarily denying his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence, seeking additional credit for jail time served, and the order denying his motion for rehearing.

Defendant sought credit for time served in the St. Lucie County Jail in connection with an unrelated offense. He alleged that late in February 2006, soon after his arrest in St. Lucie County, he was served with a violation of probation warrant in connection with the instant Broward case. In April 2007, over a year later, he was transferred to Broward County after the St. Lucie case was resolved.

The trial court denied the motion based on the state’s response, which argued that Defendant did not provide sufficient information to establish his entitlement to additional credit because he failed to list the specific dates of his incarceration, and did not attach any documentation to support his claim. Defendant argued in his motion for rehearing that his indigence prevented him from obtaining records from the St. Lucie County Jail, but the state could obtain them, and they would demonstrate his entitlement to the additional credit. He argued that he had to be allowed the same opportunity to litigate as a person of means.

A motion for jail time credit is cognizable under rule 3.800(a) only if the movant “affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief.” State v. Mancillo, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998) (emphasis added); see also Toro v. State, 719 So.2d 947, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (adopting requirement that rule 3.800(a) motion for jail time credit “will have to allege where in the record the information can be located and explain how the record demonstrates entitlement to the relief requested.”) (emphasis added). Defendant’s motion was insufficient in that it did not affirmatively allege where his Broward County records would demonstrate his entitlement to relief — he alleged only that those records would be found with the St. Lucie County sheriff. Even if he could obtain the records, under rule 3.800(a) he would not be entitled to an evidentiary hearing during which he could offer them into evidence; a claim of error that cannot be established without relying on facts that are not evident on the face of the record is a claim that cannot be adjudicated under rule 3.800(a). Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d *1173 1045, 1053 (Fla.2011) (citing Brooks v. State, 969 So.2d 238 (Fla.2007)).1

Affirmed.

HAZOURI, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

. Had Defendant filed a timely sworn rule 3.850 motion raising this claim, the state would have had the burden of refuting it, and an evidentiary hearing would have been possible. But even if this were the case, or even if the records concerning the date when Defendant was served with the Broward warrant were a matter of record in his Broward case, Defendant is mistaken that he automatically would be entitled to credit for all the time he was incarcerated in St. Lucie County after service of the Broward warrant. Taking judicial notice under section 90.202(6), Florida Statutes, of our own file in Defendant's prior rule 3.850 appeal, which contains a transcript of his plea and sentencing colloquy, it is clear that the trial court rejected Defendant’s request for his sentence in this case to be made concurrent with his sentence in his then recently resolved St. Lucie County case. In light of the fact that the sentences were run consecutively, Defendant could not be entitled to jail time credit for the time he spent in St. Lucie County jail in connection with the St. Lucie County case against his sentence in the Broward County case. Ransone v. State, 20 So.3d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), approved, 48 So.3d 692 (Fla.2010).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Young v. State, 86 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)

…pecifically his booking sheet, jail card, written judgment and sentence, and sentencing transcripts — in support of his entitlement to jail credit. As such, he has raised a facially sufficient claim under rule 3.800(a) as well. See Cabrera v. State, 62 So. 3d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Therefore, the postconviction court’s dismissal on this ground must be reversed and remanded for consideration on the merits. Because Young has raised facially sufficient challenges to his sentence in grounds three and el…
Troche-Vazquez v. State, 114 So. 3d 422 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)

…rt denying his rule 3.800(a) motion [*423] claiming additional jail credit.1 The defendant has failed to present a facially sufficient claim since the alleged additional credit cannot be ascertained from the face of the record. See Cabrera v. State, 62 So. 3d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to the defendant’s presenting his claim in a rule 3.850 motion.2 AFFIRMED. PALMER, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur. . See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a). . We note tha…
Dijon Surico v. State, 68 So. 3d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)

…he records it can be demonstrated that she is entitled to jail time credit (as opposed to drug farm time served for which she would not be entitled to credit) and identifying in which lower court case number the credit applies. See Cabrera v. State, 62 So. 3d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); see also Toro v. State, 719 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). WARNER, STEVENSON and LEVINE, JJ., concur.…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)
Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2007)
Hardy v. Hon. Taylor Douglas, 719 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
Ransone v. State, 48 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2010)
Ransone v. State, 20 So. 3d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

FELIX CABRERA, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

FELIX CABRERA, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE