MIGUEL BONILLA, 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 held that a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle to challenge plea agreement provisions regarding jail time credit or to claim out-of-state jail credit.
Miguel Bonilla appealed the denial of his motion seeking additional jail time credit for time spent in jail in Georgia before his transport to Florida…
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 Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
Miguel Bonilla appeals the denial of his motion seeking additional jail time credit, which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Bonilla sought credit against his prison sentence for time he spent in jail in Georgia before being transported to Florida to face charges in the instant case. The denial was based on a state response that his documentation did not suffice to show that he was being held in Georgia in connection with the instant case, and also that he had waived additional credit by agreeing, in the course of his plea colloquy, to the number of days the court awarded, 1035 days. The state also attached a copy of the plea agreement, signed by the state, defense counsel, and Bonilla, which provided for 1035 days of jail time credit, not the 1160 he now sought.
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. Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla.2011). Furthermore, regardless of the sufficiency of the documentation and regardless of whether the colloquy sufficed to constitute a waiver, 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. Gomez v. State, 984 So.2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); West v. State, 22 So.3d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Sambolin v. State, 2 So.3d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Garnett v. State, 957 So.2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (en banc).
However, even by the time Bonilla filed his prior motion raising this same claim, the time to file a motion pursuant to rule 3.850 already had expired. Thus, this claim cannot now be raised.
Affirmed.
CIKLIN, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Koehler v. State, 246 So. 3d 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…lant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the court’s failure to give him credit for time served in jail in North Carolina on the Florida offenses. This claim is cognizable in this proceeding. See Bonilla v. State, 110 So. 3d 492, 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that claim seeking out-of-state jail credit may be raised on direct appeal or in rule 3.850 motion). Because Appellant was not required to provide proof of his allegations at this stage, his failure to prove entitle…
-
Koehler v. State, 246 So. 3d 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…lant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the court's failure to give him credit for time served in jail in North Carolina on the Florida offenses. This claim is cognizable in this proceeding. See Bonilla v. State , 110 So. 3d 492, 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that claim seeking out-of-state jail credit may be raised on direct appeal or in rule 3.850 motion). Because Appellant was not required to provide proof of his allegations at this stage, his failure to prove entitle…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)
- Jenkins v. State, 957 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Simpson v. Est. OF Roosevelt Norton, 984 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- West v. State, 22 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Sambolin v. State, 2 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)