THOMAS J. BROOKS, 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.
Thomas Brooks appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for additional jail credit for time served in a Georgia jail while awaiting transfer to Florida. The court affirmed the denial without prejudice, holding that out-of-state jail credit claims must be raised on direct appeal or through an ineffective assistance of counsel motion, not a rule 3.800(a) motion, but allowed Brooks sixty days to file a proper rule 3.850 motion.
Out-of-state jail credit claims are not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion and must be raised on direct appeal or through a rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. However, the trial court has discretion to award such credit if the defendant demonstrates he was held solely on the Florida warrant. The court affirmed without prejudice, allowing Brooks sixty days to file a proper rule 3.850 motion.
[1] A defendant is not automatically entitled to jail credit for time served in another state, even if incarcerated there on a Florida warrant.
[2] A trial judge possesses inherent discretionary authority to award jail credit for time served in another jurisdiction while awaiting transfer to Florida.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A claim that a defendant is entitled to out-of-state jail credit is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion; such a claim must be raised either on direct appeal or in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.”
Establishes the proper procedural mechanism for raising out-of-state jail credit claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrooks was sentenced in Broward County circuit court to concurrent prison sentences with credit for 441 days of county jail time. He sought additional…
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 Motion For Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
Thomas J. Brooks appeals the denial of his motion seeking additional jail credit, which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(a). Brooks sought credit against his prison sentence for time spent in jail in Georgia following the transmission of a warrant there, prior to his being transported to Florida. We affirm without prejudice.
Brooks filed the instant motion in Bro-ward County circuit court case numbers 07-23195 and 08-5908, in which he originally was sentenced to a prison term followed by probation. Following the revocation of his probation, he was sentenced in both cases, concurrently, to a new prison sentence, with credit for 441 days of county jail time (as well as credit for all time previously served in prison). In his motion, he claimed he had been incarcerated in the Cook County Jail in Adel, Georgia, from December 16, 2009, to April 5, 2010, and requested additional jail time credit from December 19, 2009 (the date of the warrant was transmitted to that jail based on the charges in this case), through April 5, 2010, when he was transported to Bro-ward County, Florida, a total of 107 days, which the trial court did not allow when it sentenced him.
The state’s response confirmed that the 441 days of credit included time Brooks spent in jail prior to his initial prison term, plus the period from April 6, 2010, when he was returned from Georgia, through July 15, 2010, the date of sentencing, another 101 days. It acknowledged that a trial judge has discretion to award credit for time served in other jurisdictions while awaiting transfer to Florida, e.g., Kronz v. State, 462 So.2d 450 (Fla.1985); Martin v. State, 796 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), but it recommended the trial court exercise its discretion to deny Brooks credit for the time he served in Georgia because he had not demonstrated that he was held there solely on the Florida warrant. See Tribble v. State, 958 So.2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (affirming denial of motion for additional jail time credit; defendant clearly was not entitled to jail credit for time spent incarcerated in another state because records demonstrated he was incarcerated there on unrelated charges).
A claim that a defendant is entitled to out-of-state jail credit is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion; such a claim must be raised either on direct appeal or in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Lake v. State, 72 So.3d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), and cases cited therein; Wombaugh v. State, 25 So.3d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
Although Brooks’s motion was filed within the time for filing a timely rule 3.850 motion, it was not under oath, he did not allege that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request that the trial court award out-of-state jail credit, and he did not allege that he was held in Georgia solely on the warrant in this case. Our affirmance therefore is without prejudice to any right he may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion making those allegations under oath, if he can do so in good faith. Because the two-year time limit of rule 3.850(b) expired while this appeal was pending, Brooks shall have sixty days from the date of the mandate in this ease in which to file such a motion, and the postconviction court shall consider the motion timely filed.
Affirmed without prejudice.
STEVENSON, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradley v. State, 111 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…idered under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 because it was not sworn, and he did not allege that trial counsel was ineffective for advising him that the sentence would run concurrent to the Saint Lucie County sentence. See Brooks v. State, 91 So. 3d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Reed v. State, 703 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Even if it had been sworn, the claim could not be considered under rule 3.850 because Defendant was not seeking to vacate his sentence or withdraw his plea; rather, he seemed to…
-
DeANGELO v. State, 141 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…efore, we affirm the denial of DeAn-gelo’s claim for out-of-state jail credit without prejudice to any right he may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion. See Wombaugh, v. State, 25 So. 3d 707, 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Brooks v. State, 91 So. 3d 212, 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). However, because the postconviction court erred in failing to consider DeAngelo’s facially sufficient claim that he did not receive credit for time served in Polk County jail, we reverse and remand for further proceedings a…
Authorities Cited
- Kronz v. State, 462 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1985)
- Martin v. State, 796 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Wombaugh v. State, 25 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Tribble v. State, 958 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Lake v. State, 72 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)