TERRENCE EUGENE ANCRUM
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A claim for jail credit that disputes the amount agreed to in a plea bargain is not cognizable in a Rule 3.801 proceeding and must instead be raised in a motion challenging the voluntariness of the plea.
[1] A claim for jail credit that disputes the amount specified in a plea bargain agreement is not cognizable in a motion for correction of jail credit under Florida Rule of C…
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 intelligence“challenges to plea agreement provisions regarding jail credit are not cognizable under the rule providing a mechanism for correcting the improper denial of credit for time served; such challenges must be raised in a motion challenging the voluntariness of the plea”
Court's explanation of why Rule 3.801 does not apply to disputes over agreed jail credit amounts
Ancrum filed a motion for correction of jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. The motion sought jail credit beyond the amount ag…
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
October 21, 2019 PER CURIAM.
Terrance Eugene Ancrum appeals the summary denial of his motion for correction of jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. Because a claim for jail credit beyond the amount agreed to in a plea bargain is not cognizable in a rule 3.801 proceeding, we affirm. See Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045, 1052 (Fla. 2011) (holding that challenges to plea agreement provisions regarding jail credit are not cognizable under the rule providing a mechanism for correcting the improper denial of credit for time served; such challenges must be raised in a motion challenging the voluntariness of the plea); see also Barnette v. State, 205 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Romero v. State, 176 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Hale v. State, 174 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).
2
AFFIRMED.
RAY, C.J., and B.L. THOMAS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isaiah Rivera v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Ancrum v. State, 281 So. 3d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (holding that “a claim for jail credit beyond the amount agreed to in a plea bargain is not cognizable in a rule 3.801 proceeding”); see also Doyle v. State, 526 So. 2d 909, 911 (Fla. 1988) (explaining that a postconviction claim…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)
- Barnette v. State, 205 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Hale v. State, 174 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)