SCOTTIE D. LOWE, 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 held that the inpatient treatment condition did not extend the statutory maximum sentence, but the jail credit claim was timely filed.
[1] Inpatient treatment imposed as a condition of probation does not extend the statutory maximum term of probation if it is part of the probationary period.
[2] A claim for jail credit must be raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801, which provides a one-year window from the finalization of the sentence.
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 intelligenceAppellant challenged his sentence for felony theft, arguing it exceeded the statutory maximum and he was entitled to more jail credit. The trial court…
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 Felony Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Scottie D. Lowe filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion in which he argues that his original 2008 sentence for felony theft, a third-degree felony, was illegal because the trial court sentenced him' to 48 months of probation plus 18 months of inpatient treatment, which exceeded the five-year statutory maximum for this offense. In his second claim he asserts he is entitled to 254 days of jail credit.
The record indicates that the trial court imposed inpatient treatment as a condition of probation. See § 948.035, Fla. Stat. (2008) (allowing for imposition of inpatient treatment as a condition of probation). This probationary condition did not extend the 48-month term of probation, and thus this claim is meritless.
As to the second claim, Appellant asserts he was entitled to 254 days of jail credit. He needed to raise this claim pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801, which affords a defendant a one-year period, measured from the date the sentence becomes final, in which to raise a jail credit claim, gee Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(b). Appellant’s sentence became final when this Court issued its mandate in the direct appeal, 1D13-4567, on June 2, 2015. Appellant filed the instant motion on January 22, 2016, and therefore his jail credit claim was timely under rule 3.801.
In response to this Court’s show cause order, the state replied that it could not show cause as to why Appellant should not be afforded the opportunity to file a facially sufficient rule 3.801 motion. We therefore affirm this appeal but without prejudice to Appellant filing a rule 3.801 motion within 60 days,* raising the claim of entitlement to the 254 days of jail credit.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.