DARYL HARNAGE, 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.
Daryl Harnage appealed the denial of a Rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail credit for time served on a Martin County probation violation case. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that Harnage was properly credited from the date the probation violation warrant was formally executed, not from his arrest on separate St. Lucie County charges.
Harnage was not entitled to additional jail credit. He was properly credited from the date the Martin County probation violation warrant was formally executed. The claim that he was held solely on the Martin County detainer while jailed in St. Lucie County failed because Harnage did not identify record evidence to support it and such factual matters are not appropriate for a Rule 3.800(a) motion.
[1] A defendant is entitled to jail credit from the date a violation of probation warrant is formally executed.
[2] A defendant is not entitled to jail credit for time served on new charges when a detainer for a probation violation is also in place, unless the defendant can demonstrate…
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“The record attached by the trial court in this case demonstrates that Harnage was given credit from the date Martin County authorities formally arrested him on the violation of probation warrant.”
Establishes that the trial court properly awarded jail credit from the formal execution date of the probation warrant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarnage was arrested for new offenses in St. Lucie County while on probation for cases in Martin County. A no-bond hold was placed on him in the St. L…
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 Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Daryl Harnage appeals the denial of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion. The motion alleged that Harnage was arrested for new offenses in St. Lucie County while he was on probation for cases in Martin County. A “no-bond hold” was placed on Harnage while he was jailed on the St. Lucie County case, and a violation of probation warrant issued in Martin County. According to the motion, the Martin County detainer was the reason Harnage did not post bond on1 the St. Lucie county charges.
The record attached by the trial court in this case demonstrates that Harnage was given credit from the date Martin County authorities formally arrested him on the violation of probation warrant. Harnage contends he is entitled to jail credit on the Martin County case from the date he was arrested for the new charges in St. Lucie County.
The motion failed to establish that Harnage was entitled to additional jail credit. The trial court correctly ruled that Harnage was entitled to jail credit from the date the Martin County violation of probation warrant was formally executed. Gethers v. State, 798 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), approved by, 838 So. 2d 504 (Fla.2003); Martinez v. State, 940 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Young v. State, 840 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Harnage failed to identify record evidence to support a claim that he was held solely on the Martin County detainer while jailed in St. Lucie County. Bonilla v. State, 884 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Under the circumstances, this claim may not be ascertainable from the face of the record and is improper for a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Decoste v. State, 898 So. 2d 1201 (Fla! 5th DCA 2005) (holding that jail credit issues are appropriately brought in a rule 3.850 motion where the additional credit hinges on factual matters not ascertainable from the face of the record).
Affirmed.
POLEN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gethers v. State, 838 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2003)
- Gethers v. State, 798 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Gamalier Bonilla v. State, 884 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Decoste v. State, 898 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Martinez v. State, 940 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Young v. State, 840 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)