HANIA THOMAS MOORE, 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 the trial court erred in denying the motion as time-barred because it was filed within the grace period established by recent amendments to the rule.
Appellant sought additional jail credit via a sworn motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. The trial court denied the motion as time-b…
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 Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s sworn Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 motion which sought additional jail credit. The trial court denied the motion as time barred under rule 3.801, but the motion was filed on September 27, 2013 — within the grace period recently added to the rule. In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Criminal Proce *1223 dure, 132 So.3d 734 (Fla.2013). Under the rule as amended, defendants sentenced before July 1, 2013, have until July 1, 2014 to file a rule 3.801 motion seeking jail credit. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.801(b).
In response to our order to show cause, the State argues that the jail credit claim is barred as successive because appellant allegedly sought the same jail credit in a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.801(d) (“No successive motions for jail credit will be considered.”). The record in this proceeding does not support affirmance on this basis as appellant states that the prior motion was based upon incorrect information. Appellant has not previously filed a motion for jail credit under rule 3.801.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the State may raise its argument that appellant’s claim for jail credit is barred by collateral estoppel.
Reversed and Remanded.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., STEVENSON and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Homer v. State, 168 So. 3d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…al of 364 days of credit. In the motion at issue in this appeal, Mr. Homer requested more jail credit than he did in his prior motion. In addition, his prior motion was filed under rule 3.800(a). This situation is similar to that in Moore v. State, 138 So. 3d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). In that case, the Fourth District ordered the State to show cause, apparently because the postconviction court improperly denied Mr. Moore’s rule 3.801 motion as untimely. The State argued that the motion was barred as successiv…
Authorities Cited
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 132 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 2013)