JAMES R. DUNN, 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 Dunn challenged a trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion seeking jail credit for time spent in a foreign jail and in a Florida jail in another county. The court affirmed the denial of foreign jail credit but reversed the denial of credit for time in Okaloosa County jail, finding the claim facially sufficient and remanding for proper record review.
The foreign jail credit claim was properly denied because appellant failed to allege he was held in that foreign jail solely on Florida charges. However, the claim for Okaloosa County jail credit was facially sufficient, and the summary denial was improper because the trial court failed to attach records conclusively refuting the allegations.
Appellant Dunn filed a Rule 3.850 motion requesting jail credit for time spent in a foreign jail and time spent in a Florida jail located in Okaloosa …
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 Motion For Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion for jail credit for time spent in a foreign jail and for jail credit for time spent in a Florida jail in another county. The appellant’s request for foreign jail credit is not sufficient, because the appellant has failed to allege that he was held in that foreign jail solely on Florida charges. See Kronz v. State, 462 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla.1985). Therefore, the trial court’s summary denial of the appellant’s claim of foreign jail credit is affirmed. The appellant’s claim for jail credit for time spent in a Florida jail in Okaloosa County is facially sufficient because the appellant complied with the pleading requirements for a facially sufficient claim. See Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Because the trial court failed to attach any records refuting the appellant’s allegations, the trial court’s summary denial of the appellant’s claim for jail credit from another county is reversed and remanded for record attachments that conclusively refute his claim, or for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
BARFIELD, KAHN, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kronz v. State, 462 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1985)
- Am. Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Gerda Jackson, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)