JODY CRUM, 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.
Jody Crum appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging whether his Polk County probationary sentence was tolled during concurrent imprisonment in Martin County and whether he is entitled to credit for time served. The appellate court affirms but allows him to file a new motion raising these specific jurisdictional issues without it being deemed successive.
The court affirms the summary denial but holds that a new Rule 3.850 motion raising these specific jurisdictional arguments should not be deemed successive because they relate to the trial court's jurisdiction to revoke probation and were not specifically raised in the original motion, giving the postconviction court the opportunity to address them.
[1] A claim that a trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation may be raised for the first time in a postconviction motion.
[2] A probationary sentence may not be tolled while a defendant serves a prison sentence on an unrelated case, even if the prison sentence is made concurrent with any active…
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“because they relate to the trial court's jurisdiction to revoke probation and because the postconviction court did not have an opportunity to address these specific arguments, a new rule 3.850 motion raising these issues should not be deemed successive”
Establishes the legal standard for when successive Rule 3.850 motions are permissible—when they raise previously unaddressed jurisdictional issues.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrum received a probationary sentence in Polk County and a separate prison sentence in Martin County that was expressly made concurrent 'with any acti…
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 Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
Jody Crum appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without prejudice to his right to file another motion pursuant to rule 3.850, raising the issues of (1) whether Crum’s probationary sentence in Polk County was tolled while he served his prison sentence on an unrelated case in Martin County where the Martin County sentence was expressly made concurrent “with any active sentence being served,” and (2) whether Crum is entitled to credit for time served on his Martin County prison sentence against his Polk County probationary sentence where the two sentences were unrelated in time, place, and forum. These arguments were not specifically raised in Crum’s original 3.850 motion, but because they relate to the trial court’s jurisdiction to revoke probation and because the postconviction court did not have an opportunity to address these specific arguments,1 a new rule 3.850 motion raising these issues should not be deemed successive. See Sepulveda v. State, 909 So.2d 568, 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that a claim of a trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to sentence a defendant for violation of probation was a cognizable claim in a rule 3.850 motion); Ford v. State, 994 So.2d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that issue of whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation may be raised for the first time in a postconviction motion); see also Wright v. State, 47 So.3d 972, 973-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (rejecting State’s argument that probationary period was tolled while deten-*87dant served time in prison on unrelated charge where prison term was made expressly concurrent to probationary term).
Affirmed without prejudice.
VILLANTI, C.J., and CASANUEVA and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 909 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Sepulveda v. State, 909 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Wright v. State, 47 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Ford v. State, 994 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)