WADE HUFF, 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 Wade Huff appealed the trial court's summary denial of his motion for correction of jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. The court reversed and remanded, finding the trial court erred by failing to address in-state jail credit and by improperly addressing out-of-state jail credit in a rule 3.801 motion.
The court reversed and remanded because the trial court committed two errors: (1) summarily denying the motion concerning in-state incarceration without attaching portions of the record conclusively showing Appellant was not entitled to relief, and (2) improperly addressing out-of-state jail credit in a rule 3.801 motion when such claims must be raised in a rule 3.850 motion. The trial court must address the Florida jail credit claim and allow Appellant to file a non-successive rule 3.850 motion for Arizona jail credit.
[1] A motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 is limited to claims for correction of jail credit for in-state incarceration.
[2] A claim for jail credit for out-of-state incarceration must be raised in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 a rule 3.801 motion is summarily denied based on the records in the case, a copy of the portion of the files and records that conclusively show that the defendant is not entitled to relief shall be attached to the final order.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that trial courts must attach conclusive portions of the record when summarily denying rule 3.801 motions.
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 pro se motion under rule 3.801 requesting correction of jail credit for time spent in both Florida and Arizona jails, arguing the se…
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 Motion For Correction Of Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 motion requesting a correction to jail credit for time Appellant spent in Arizona and Florida jails. In the order, the trial court only addressed Appellant’s request for credit for jail time spent in Arizona. We reverse the order, remand for the trial court to issue a new order addressing time spent in Florida jails under Appellant’s rule 3.801 motion, and instruct the trial court to dismiss the rule 3.801 motion as it pertains to time spent incarcerated in Arizona. If Appellant seeks to correct jail credit for *1252out-of-state incarceration, he may do so in a properly filed rule 3.850 motion.
Appellant filed a pro se motion under rule 3.801 arguing that the sentencing court miscalculated jail credit for time spent in Florida and Arizona jails. The trial court did not hold a hearing and denied the motion, only ruling that Appellant was not entitled to credit for time spent in out-of-state jails. The order was silent on Appellant’s request for jail credit spent in Florida jails. The trial court did not attach anything to the order. The trial court’s order contains two errors. First, the trial court summarily denied Appellant’s motion concerning credit for in-state incarceration. The State properly concedes that the trial court erred by failing to attach portions of the record that conclusively show Appellant is not entitled to relief. Romine v. State, 151 So.3d 553, 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“When a rule 3.801 motion is summarily denied based on the records in the case, a copy of the portion of the files and records that conclusively show that the defendant is not entitled to relief shall be attached to the final order.” (citation omitted)).
Second, a rule 3.801 motion can address correction of jail credit only for instate incarceration. Patterson v. State, 141 So.3d 707, 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that a claim of entitlement for out-of-state jail credit must be raised in a rule 3.850 motion (citing Gisi v. State, 135 So.3d 493, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014))). Thus, the trial court erred when it addressed Appellant’s request for Arizona jail credit. We decline to treat the rule 3.801 motion as a rule 3.850 motion and instruct the trial court to allow Appellant to file a 3.850 motion, which should not be considered successive. See Patterson, 141 So.3d at 709 (reversing the order of the postconviction court, which denied relief in a rule 3.801 motion seeking credit for out-of-state jail incarceration, and remanding for the defendant to file a 3.850 motion that should not be considered successive).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
LAWSON and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gisi v. State, 135 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Romine v. State, 151 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Patterson v. State, 141 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)