DAVID MOORE, A/K/A DAVID SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Defendant is entitled to prison credit for time served on the incarcerative portion of a probationary split sentence when the trial court fails to attach documentation conclusively refuting the claim.
A defendant is entitled to credit for time served on the incarcerative portion of a probationary split sentence when the trial court has not attached documentation conclusively showing the defendant received such credit or waived it.
[1] A defendant is entitled to credit for time served on the incarcerative portion of a probationary split sentence, and the trial court must attach documentation conclusivel…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore was resentenced in December 2005 following a prior appellate decision. He filed a Rule 8.800 motion seeking prison credit for time served on the…
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 Prison Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals an order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800 motion seeking prison credit for the time he served on the incarcerative portion of his probationary split sentence. Because the trial court has failed to attach documentation conclusively refuting the defendant’s allegation, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. The defendant was resentenced in December 2005, following a confession of error and opinion of this Court. Moore v. State, 840 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
A defendant is entitled to credit for the time served on the incarcerative portion of a probationary split sentence. Yarbrough v. State, 926 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Davis v. State, 869 So.2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Pierson v. State, 801 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). While the court relied on documents showing credit for the time the defendant spent in county jail, the trial court did not attach documents that conclusively show that the defendant received credit for the time spent in prison on this charge, or that he waived any such credit at the time of resentencing. It is true that the pro se defendant referred to the credit that he was seeking as “jail credit” on the form motion. However, in the context of the motion as a whole it was clearly a request for credit for prison time served.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Renovaship, Inc. v. Barclay Quatremain, 208 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…ailed had he timely sought relief under rule 1.540(b)(1), on the basis that the trial court failed to serve a copy of the dismissal order, preventing Quatremain from timely filing a notice of appeal. See, e.g., [*285] United Funding, LLC v. Brandao, 77 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Rosso v. Golden Surf Towers Condo. Ass'n, 711 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). . By its terms, rule 1.540(b)(4) provides relief only from a “judgment or decree.” However, this court has recently held that the term "judgment” inc…
Authorities Cited
- Yarbrough v. State, 926 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Moore v. State, 840 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Davis v. State, 869 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Pierson v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Shuler v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)