JAMES L. JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2015-01-21
No. 2D13-722
WALLACE and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
155 So. 3d 1223 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2015)

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the judgments and sentences but without prejudice to the defendant filing a motion for additional jail time credit.


Facts & Procedural History

The defendant filed a pro se motion to correct jail credits during the pendency of his appeal. The trial court struck 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.


Opinion of the Court
CASANUEVA, Judge.

CASANUEVA, Judge.

We affirm James L. Johnson’s judgments and sentences in this Anders1 appeal without discussion. However, this af-firmance is without prejudice to Johnson filing a facially sufficient motion seeking additional jail time credit pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801.

During the pendency of this appeal, Johnson filed a pro se “Petition to Correct Jail Credits,” pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).2 The circuit *1224court properly struck this motion because it was filed during the pendency of an appeal. See Scott v. State, 976 So.2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). The circuit court also noted that Johnson’s motion was filed pri- or to the effective date of rule 3.801, requiring that all jail credit claims be raised pursuant to that new rule.

For sentences imposed prior to July 1, 2013, as in Johnson’s case, the time for filing a rule 3.801 motion expired on July 1, 2014. Fla. R. Crim. 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.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw