CESAR TARAPIELLO ZAMORA, 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 court reversed the denial of jail credit and remanded for the trial court to award 592 additional days of jail credit on the manufacture count because the offense was part of the same criminal episode as other counts for which credit was properly awarded.
A defendant is entitled to jail credit on all counts arising from the same single criminal episode, even if a prior motion for jail credit was denied, when the award of credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law.
[1] A motion for jail credit is not barred as successive when the award of credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law and all counts arise from the same single criminal e…
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 intelligence“the award of jail credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law and a failure to correct that error would result in manifest injustice”
Standard for overcoming successive motion bar in jail credit cases
Zamora was convicted of manufacture of cannabis as the fourth count in an amended information along with three other counts. He sought 592 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 Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
Cesar Tarapiello Zamora appeals the summary denial of his motion for jail credit, which the postconviction court properly treated as one filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Zamora sought an additional 592 days of jail credit to be applied to his sentence for manufacture of cannabis, the fourth count of an amended information. The State has conceded error and agrees that Zamora is entitled to the additional jail credit on the manufacture count because it was part of the same single criminal episode as the other three counts on which he was sentenced and for which he received the correct amount of jail credit. See Johnson v. State, 978 So.2d 872, 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also Roberts v. State, 64 So.3d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Bronk v. State, 25 So.3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The postconviction court denied the instant motion as successive to an earlier motion for jail credit, which was denied, but the instant motion is not barred as successive because “the award of jail credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law and a failure to correct that error would result in manifest injustice.” Bronk, 25 So.3d at 703 (citing State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003)). Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for the postconviction court to award Zamora a total of 642 days of jail credit on the manufacture of cannabis count.
Reversed and remanded.
DAVIS and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wade v. State, 125 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…the postconviction court’s previous order denying this claim should not bar relief “because ‘the award of jail credit is clearly incorrect as a matter of law and a failure to correct that error would result in manifest injustice.’ ” Zamora v.State, 96 So. 3d 1116, 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (quoting Bronk v. State, 25 So. 3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to grant Wade’s motion and award him the 281 days of presentence jail credit in case number 08-18…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Bronk v. State, 25 So. 3d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Johnson v. State, 978 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Roberts v. State, 64 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)