ROBERT CARRIDINE, 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 affirmed the trial court's denial of an unsworn motion to correct sentence for failure to comply with pleading requirements, but without prejudice to allow Carridine to file a properly pleaded motion.
A motion to correct sentence must affirmatively allege that court records demonstrate entitlement to relief and identify where in the record that information is located.
[1] A motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) must affirmatively allege that the court records demonstrate entitlement to relief and iden…
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 intelligenceRobert Carridine filed an unsworn motion to correct his sentence to award additional time served, but the motion did not comply with pleading requirem…
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 Legal Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Carridine appeals the denial of his unsworn motion to correct sentence to award additional time served. Contrary to the pleading requirements of State v. Mancino, 7-14 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998) and Toro v. State, 719 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the motion did not affirmatively allege that the court records demonstrate entitlement to relief or identify where in the record that information could be located. The trial court quite properly denied the motion as legally insufficient.
The denial should have been without prejudice to Carridine to file a new motion that corrects the pleading deficiency. Quartucci v. State, 736 So. 2d 1247, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Daily v. State, — So. 2d -, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D949, 1999 WL 212859 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr.7, 1999). Accordingly, our affir- manee is without prejudice to file either (1) a rule 3.800 motion that affirmatively demonstrates on the face of the record entitlement to additional jail time credit or, alternatively, (2) a properly sworn rule 3.850 motion challenging the sentence based on the failure to award jail time credit. Fla. R.Crim. Pro. 3.800(a); 3.850 (1999). If Carridine elects the second option, the motion must be filed within the time remaining under that rule.
WARNER, C.J., STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 754 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…court quite properly denied the motion as legally insufficient and time-barred. In conformance with our decisions in Quartucci v. State, 736 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), Daily v. State, 750 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) and Carridine v. State, 741 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the denial, however, should have been without prejudice to Appellant to file a new motion correcting the pleading deficiency. Accordingly, our affirmance is without prejudice to file a rule 3.800(a) motion which affirmatively st…1 / 2
-
Levy v. State, 752 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
-
Tarr v. State, 978 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…irm the trial court’s order without prejudice for appellant to file a sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion, or a rule 3.850 motion in the time remaining under rule 3.850(b), if he did not receive the proper credit for time served. See Carridine v. State, 741 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). FARMER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hardy v. Hon. Taylor Douglas, 719 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Quartucci v. State, 736 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)