ANTONIOUS LOUIS, 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 appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for additional jail time credit. The court found a factual dispute regarding two days of jail credit and reversed, requiring the trial court to either award the credit or hold an evidentiary hearing.
The court reversed the trial court's order denying additional jail credit because a factual dispute existed regarding appellant's entitlement to two additional days of credit. The trial court must either grant the additional two days of jail credit or hold an evidentiary hearing to determine appellant's entitlement.
[1] A trial court may correct a sentence that fails to allow a defendant credit for all time spent in county jail before sentencing.
[2] When a factual dispute exists regarding jail time credit and the court's records do not conclusively show the defendant is entitled to no relief, an evidentiary hearing i…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“When, as in this case, a factual dispute exists, and the files and records do not conclusively show appellant is entitled to no relief, an evidentiary hearing is generally required.”
Establishes the standard requiring an evidentiary hearing when factual disputes exist regarding jail credit entitlement
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was arrested on September 25, 2012, and posted bond on November 14, 2012, but was not released from jail until November 15, 2012. He failed …
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 Factual Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals an order denying his motion to correct jail time credit.1 He contends the trial court erred in awarding only fifty-two days of jail credit when he was sentenced. We reverse and remand.
Appellant was first arrested on September 25, 2012. On November 14, 2012, he posted bond. Thereafter, appellant failed to appear at a mandatory court proceeding, and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He was rearrested on May 29, 2013, brought to court that same day, and the trial court reinstated his bond. Based upon these facts, the trial judge, when sentencing appellant, awarded him fifty-two days of jail credit and, in his order denying appellant’s motion for jail credit, attached copies of documents supporting this chronology.
Appellant argued below and argues here that he was entitled to receive two additional days of jail credit at sentencing because, although his bond was posted on November 14, 2012, he was not actually released from jail until November 15, 2012, and, although he was rearrested on May 29, 2013, and his bond was reinstated that day by the trial court, he was not released from the county jail until May 30, 2013. Appellant attached to his motion a copy of a letter dated October 4, 2013, from a court records specialist with the Brevard County Sheriffs Office, which indicated that, prior to sentencing, he was in custody *453on this case from September 25, 2012, until November 15, 2012 (i.e., fifty-two days) and then from May 29, 2018, until May 30, 2013 (two days).2
When, as in this case, a factual dispute exists, and the files and records do not conclusively show appellant is entitled to no relief, an evidentiary hearing is generally required. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f) (incorporated in Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(e)).
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions that the trial court either grant the additional two days jail credit or hold an evidentiary hearing to determine appellant’s entitlement to the same.
LAWSON and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 219 So. 3d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…nd remand for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief.”); Lundy v. State, 912 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Barfield v. State, 900 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Cozza v. State, 756 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); see also Louis v. State, 143 So. 3d 452, 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“When a factual dispute exists, and the files and records do not conclusively show appellant is entitled to no relief, an evidentiary hearing is generally required.”). Rehearing granted; reversed and remanded for further…
-
Doloretine Pippins v. State, 147 So. 3d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…of additional time served. As we stated in Louis v. State, “When, as in this case, a factual dispute exists, and the files and records do not conclusively show [that] appellant is entitled to no relief, an evidentiary hearing is generally required.” 143 So. 3d 452, 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)).1 [*667] On remand, the inclusion of the plea colloquy may or may not be sufficient to overcome Ms. Pippins’ sworn allegation in the rule 3.801 motion. If the colloquy is not sufficient, Ms…
-
Sherman v. State, 185 So. 3d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…edit until he was sentenced in Orange County on August 13, 2015. When “a factual dispute exists, and the files and records do not conclusively show [the movant] is entitled to no relief, an evidentiary hearing is generally required.” Louis v. State, 143 So. 3d 452, 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). Accordingly, we reverse the order of the postconviction court and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of additional portions of the record conclusively refuting Sherman’s claim for jail credit in excess of twent…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence