DAVID SEPLOW, 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.
Challenges to plea agreement provisions regarding jail time credit are not cognizable under rule 3.800(a) as they present factual questions.
Defendant sought additional jail time credit via a rule 3.800(a) motion, despite receiving the credit stipulated in his negotiated plea agreement.…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
David Seplow (Defendant) appeals an order of the Palm Beach County circuit court, summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(a), in which he sought additional credit for jail time served, though he received the amount of credit called for in his negotiated plea agreement. We affirm without prejudice to his filing a timely rule 3.850 motion challenging his plea on this basis, should he choose to do so. See Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla.2011) (holding that challenges to plea agreement provisions concerning credit for time served are not cognizable in rule 3.800(a) motions because they present factual questions that cannot be resolved on the basis of trial court records).
Because this court previously considered such motions to be cognizable under rule 3.800(a),1 we provide that any such motion should not be considered successive to the rule 3.850 motion which Defendant already filed with the trial court, challenging the voluntariness of his plea based on matters other than his jail time credit.2
Affirmed, without prejudice.
POLEN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. State, 117 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…State, 918 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Pursuant to rule 9.040(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we have considered whether another appellate or extraordinary remedy is available to Appellant and conclude there is none. DeLuca v. State, 82 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Saunders v. State, 837 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. CLARK, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Elroy Lacy v. State, 117 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…02 and 10-9329CFA02 due to his assertion that he was not awarded the proper amount of jail credit as part of the agreement. Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045, 1052 (Fla.2011); Villar v. State, 110 So. 3d 503, 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Seplow v. State, 82 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Affirmed, without prejudice. DAMOORGIAN, C.J., GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.…
-
Amador v. State, 112 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ief under Rule 3.850 seeking the additional jail credit described in his Rule 3.800(a) motion. Any timely Rule 3.850 motion appellant files on this subject shall not be considered successive as that term is defined in Rule 3.850(f). Seplow v. State, 82 So. 3d 948, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Affirmed without prejudice. GROSS, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)
- Silverstein v. State, 654 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)