TRAVIS NAVE, 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.
Court affirmed summary denial of jail credit motion but allowed appellant to file a new motion under the newly implemented rule 3.801 within 30 days without penalty for timeliness.
A defendant whose jail credit motion was properly denied as insufficient under the old rule may file a new motion under the newly implemented rule 3.801 within 30 days without the motion being deemed untimely or successive.
[1] When a procedural rule governing jail credit motions is changed after a defendant's motion is filed under the old rule, the defendant may be afforded an opportunity to fi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTravis Nave filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence alleging a jail credit calculation error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.8…
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 Facially Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Travis Nave appeals from the summary denial of his pro se motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which alleged an error in his jail credit calculation. Rule 3.800(a) was the proper vehicle for addressing jail credit issues when Nave filed his motion. Shortly before the trial court ruled on Nave’s motion, however, rule 3.801 was implemented.as the procedural vehicle for addressing all jail credit issues. While Nave now concedes that there was no error in the trial court’s finding that his 3.800(a) motion was legally insufficient pursuant to that rule, a simple affirmance would leave Nave with no opportunity to attempt to present a legally sufficient claim. This is because rule 3.800(a) is no longer in effect and the time deadline for Nave to file a rule 3.801 motion has now passed. Based on the unique posture of this case, and the fact that rule 3.801 expresses a clear intention that 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adkins v. State, 183 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…-appealable order allowing the defendant sixty days to amend the motion. Because it treated the motion as a Rule 3.801 ’motion, the1 trial court erred by not allowing the defendant an opportunity to; amend the insufficient motion. See Nave v. State, 153 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). [*1104] The trial court also erred in applying the precedent pertaining to Rule 3.800(a) because Rule 3.801 superseded Rule 3.800(a) and has a different procedure for resolving jail credit claims. Under Rule 3.801, a defendant d…
Authorities Cited
- Juliao v. State, 149 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Vincent v. State, 149 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)