RICARDO VINCENT, 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 appellant's motion was insufficient under the new rule, but affirmed without prejudice to refile.
Appellant filed an insufficient motion for jail time credit prior to a new rule's effective date. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellant…
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 Untimely Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Prior to the effective date of rule 3.801, the appellant filed an insufficient rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail time credit. The trial court summarily denied it based on the state’s response, which explained that appellant had received all the credit to which he was entitled. The state did not attach any portions of the record to its response, and the trial court did not attach any to its order. See Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1051 (Fla.2011) (explaining trial court need not attach documents to refute a rule 3.800(a) claim). The appellant appealed, seeking the portions of the record that refuted his claim pursuant to new rule 3.801.1 However, his motion did not comply with that rule; it was not sworn and did not contain the contents required by rule 3.801(c).
Rule 3.801 became effective on July 1, 2013, while the appellant’s motion was pending in the trial court. The time to file a rule 3.801 motion as to sentences imposed before July 1, 2013, expired on July 1, 2014, while his appeal was pending in this Court. Under the circumstances, we affirm without prejudice to his filing a facially sufficient rule 3.801 motion within thirty days of the issuance of this court’s mandate. A motion filed within this time will not be deemed untimely or successive.
Affirmed without prejudice.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nave v. State, 153 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…at defendants be given at least one opportunity to amend a facially insufficient motion, we affirm without prejudice to Nave filing a facially sufficient rule 3.801 motion within 30 days of the issuance of this court’s mandate. See Vincent v. State, 149 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). A motion filed within this time will not be deemed untimely or successive. Id. AFFIRMED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SAWAYA, LAWSON and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.…
-
Georges v. State, 199 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…motion. We affirm on the denial of the motion for credit for time served pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2) without prejudice to file , a facially sufficient rule 3.801 motion within thirty days of the issuance of this court’s mandate. Vincent v. State, 149 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). A motion filed within this time will not be deemed untimely or successive. Affirmed. GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur.…
-
Johnson v. State, 155 So. 3d 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…. P. 3.801(b). Because this deadline expired during the pen-dency of this appeal, we affirm without prejudice to Johnson filing a facially sufficient rule 3.801 motion within thirty days of the issuance of this court’s mandate. See Vincent v. State, 149 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). A motion filed within this time will not be deemed untimely or successive. Affirmed without prejudice. WALLACE and SLEET, JJ., Concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). . Johnson als…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)