JOHNNY PAUL WALKER
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.
When reviewing a summary denial of a jail credit motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801, the trial court must either attach records that conclusively refute the defendant's claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] Summary denial of a jail credit motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801(e) is improper when the trial court has not attached records that conclusively refut…
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 intelligenceJohnny Paul Walker filed a motion for jail credit asserting he was entitled to an additional 350 days of credit because his bond on a separate Lake Co…
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 Revocation Of Bond cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLIS, J.
Appellant appeals the summary denial of his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. Appellant alleges that he is entitled to an additional 350 days of jail credit because his bond on a separate Lake County case was never revoked when he was subsequently arrested in other cases. The trial court determined that the records attached to Appellant's motion did not establish an entitlement to jail credit, even though the sentencing records from the separate Lake County case were not included as attachments to the motion. Because the attached records did not conclusively refute Appellant’s claim, the postconviction court erred in its summary denial. We reverse and remand for the trial court to attach records conclusively refuting Appellant’s claim of entitlement to additional jail credit,
or in the alternative, hold an evidentiary hearing. See Fla. R. Crim. P.
3.801(e); Muscanell v. State, 186 So. 3d 57, 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions.
EVANDER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.