TERRANCE TYRONE MASON, 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 Mason challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to correct sentencing error seeking credit for time served. The appellate court reversed, holding that jail credit claims can be raised in a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion and that Mason's motion was sufficiently pleaded.
Jail credit claims can be litigated in either a rule 3.800(b) motion while a direct appeal is pending or in a rule 3.801 motion after sentencing becomes final. Mason's motion was sufficiently pleaded because he identified the alleged errors with specificity and set forth the amounts of credit he claimed.
[1] Claims regarding credit for time served can be raised in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
[2] A motion to correct sentencing error must identify the error with specificity and provide a proposed correction.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“make clear that jail credit matters can be litigated in either a motion filed under rule 3.800(b) while a defendant's direct appeal is pending, or in a motion filed under rule 3.801 after a defendant's sentence has become final”
Establishes that jail credit claims can be raised under either rule 3.800(b) or 3.801, contrary to the trial court's position
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMason filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) seeking credit for time served. The trial court denied the motion, concludin…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.801 cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Terrance Tyrone Mason, challenges the trial court’s denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error, wherein he sought credit for time served. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.
The trial court denied Appellant’s motion upon concluding that claims regarding jail credit must be raised in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801, and even if they could be raised in a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, they were insufficiently pled. The State properly concedes that the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s motion on the ground that claims regarding credit for time served must be raised in a rule 3.801 motion and cannot be raised in a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. See In re Amendments to Fla. R. of Crim. P., 204 So.3d 944, 944-45 (Fla. 2016) (explaining that the 2016 amendments to rules 3.800 and 3.801 “make clear that jail credit matters can be litigated in either a motion filed under rule 3.800(b) while a defendant’s direct appeal is pending, or in a motion filed under rule 3.801 after a defendant’s sentence has become final”); see also Cousnard v. State, 188 So.3d 936, 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing the trial court’s denial of a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error that sought an additional award of jail credit); Lowe v. State, 152 So.3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quashing the trial court’s orders on the appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail credit, which it had treated as a rule 3.801 motion, without prejudice to the appellant filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion or a rule 3.801 motion after the direct appeal concluded). Additionally, the trial court erroneously concluded that Appellant’s claims were insufficiently pled given that he identified the alleged errors with specificity and set forth the amounts of credit he claims he is entitled to receive. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b) (“The motion must identify the error with specificity and provide a proposed correction.”). Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LEWIS, ROBERTS, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 204 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 2016)
- Cousnard v. State, 188 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
- Scottie D. Lowe v. State, 152 So. 3d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)