JAMES P. VICKERY, 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 reversed and remanded because the appellant's motion for additional jail credit was facially insufficient, entitling him to an opportunity to amend under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801(e).
A defendant whose motion for additional jail credit is facially insufficient is entitled to an opportunity to amend the motion within a reasonable time period.
[1] A motion for additional jail credit that fails to explain the basis for the requested credit is facially insufficient and must be remanded to allow the defendant to amend…
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 intelligenceAppellant sought 95 additional days of jail credit beyond the 235 days awarded, citing two different date ranges without explaining how they entitled …
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 Practice cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant filed a timely motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 seeking an additional 95 days of jail credit. He was awarded 235 days of credit, and he states this was for the period of March 14, 2014, through October 17, 2014, which is 218 days. He then set forth a second set of dates, January 10, 2012, through April 13, 2012, and stated he is entitled to 95 days of jail credit for this period. However, he does not explain how these dates entitle him to additional jail credit. The trial court found he had actually been “arrested earlier than stated” in his motion and that the 235 days of credit was the correct award. Between the motion and the order, we are unable to determine the validity of either the assertion or the conclusion.
The trial court’s order does not conclusively refute Appellant’s claim, but the motion is facially insufficient. Pursuant to rule 3.801(e) Appellant is entitled to the opportunity to amend the motion within a reasonable time period. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to grant Appellant the opportunity to amend his facially insufficient motion. See Mann v. State, 160 So.3d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LEWIS, THOMAS, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.