JEREMIAH CASTEEL, 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.
Appellant Casteel appealed the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion for additional jail credit. The court affirmed the denial but held that because a new rule 3.801 governing jail credit claims became effective on July 1, 2013, appellant must file a properly sworn and legally sufficient motion under the new rule within the remaining time period.
The court affirmed the denial of appellant's motion without prejudice because it did not comply with the requirements of newly-enacted rule 3.801, which requires jail credit claims to be raised within one year after the sentence becomes final and to be filed under oath. Appellant may file a compliant sworn rule 3.801 motion within the time remaining under the rule.
[1] A trial court is not required to attach records to an order denying a rule 3.800(a) motion.
[2] The burden is on the movant to show entitlement to relief on the face of the record when challenging a denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 burden is on the movant to show his entitlement to relief is clear on the face of the record.”
Establishes that the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate entitlement to jail credit relief through the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a motion seeking additional jail credit on September 26, 2013. The motion was not filed under oath. The trial court denied the motion …
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 Sworn Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the order denying appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion, but for reasons other than those argued by the State in its response. Appellant filed his motion seeking additional jail credit on September 26, 2013. The motion was not under oath. The trial court denied the motion without explanation, without ordering a state response, and without including any record attachments.
In response to our order to show cause in this appeal, the State argues that we should affirm because a case summary provided with the record on appeal suggests that the trial court granted additional jail credit by order entered on April 23, 2013. The State concedes, however, that we would normally remand based on the trial court’s failure to attach records showing conclusively that appellant was not entitled to relief. See St Cyr v. State, 126 So.3d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Ways v. State, 114 So.3d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
*625We do not accept the State’s concession. The Florida Supreme Court has made clear that a trial court is not required to attach any records to an order denying a rule 8.800(a) motion. Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1051 (Fla.2011). The burden is on the movant to show his entitlement to relief is clear on the face of the record. Id.
In this case, appellant filed his motion after the July 1, 2013, effective date of newly-enacted Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. This new rule, which governs jail credit claims, requires that the claim be raised within one year after the sentence becomes final. A rule 3.801 motion must be filed under oath. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(c). The procedures of rule 3.850(f) apply to jail credit claims brought under rule 3.801. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(e). Thus, when a defendant files a sworn and legally sufficient rule 3.801 jail credit motion, the court can be required to attach records refuting the claim. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(5).
The motion filed by appellant in this case was not under oath and did not comply with the requirements of rule 3.801. We affirm without prejudice for appellant to file a sworn and legally sufficient rule 3.801 motion within the time remaining under the rule. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(b) (“For sentences imposed prior to July 1, 2013, a motion under this rule may be filed on or before July 1, 2014.”).
Affirmed without prejudice.
MAY, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emmett Timothy COX v. State, 221 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…defendant’s entitlement to relief are apparent from the face of the record. Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007); Porkolab v. State, 187 So. 3d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); McClain v. State, 157 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Casteel v. State, 141 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Smart v. State, 124 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Jarrett v. State, 89 So. 3d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).…
-
Dorsett v. State, 166 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion. Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla.2011); Casteel v. State, 141 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). “[R]eview of the record establishes that the defendant did not satisfy the burden of showing entitlement to relief on the face of the record.” Johnson, 60 So. 3d at 1051 n. 2. Appellant’s second claim is meritless as the alleged…
-
Zill v. State, 162 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…rovide copies of the written sentences and the sentencing transcript to support his claim. In a rule 3.800(a) motion, the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate entitlement to relief. Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla.2011); Casteel v. State, 141 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of this claim without prejudice for Zill to refile his motion with supporting documentation. Affirmed. WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Ocelyn ST. CYR v. State, 126 So. 3d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Dion R. Waye v. State, 114 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)