NICHOLAS GIGGETTS, 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 reversed the summary denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence because the record did not conclusively establish that the defendant clearly and knowingly waived his entitlement to additional jail credit.
A defendant may waive entitlement to jail credit upon guilty plea, but only if the record establishes a clear and knowing waiver; absent such a waiver, the sentence is illegal.
[1] A defendant may waive entitlement to jail credit upon guilty plea only if the record establishes a clear and knowing waiver; absent such a waiver, the resulting sentence…
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“the record must provide a clear and knowing waiver of entitlement to jail credit in order to refute a claim for additional credit”
Court explaining the standard for waiving jail credit entitlement upon guilty plea
Appellant sought 910 days of jail credit instead of the 698 days awarded at sentencing. The trial court denied his motion to correct illegal sentence,…
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 Guilty Plea Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the record does not conclusively refute his claim of entitlement to additional jail credit, we reverse.
Appellant alleges that he is entitled to 910 days of jail credit instead of the 698 days of credit awarded at sentencing. The trial court denied the appellant’s motion on the basis that he entered a guilty plea which included a provision that he would receive credit for 698 days previously served. While an accused may waive an entitlement to jail credit when entering a plea, the record must provide a clear and knowing waiver of entitlement to jail credit in order to refute a claim for additional credit. See Murphy v. State, 930 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In the absence of such a waiver, the resulting sentence is illegal. See Haines v. State, 851 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The record in the instant case, which does not include the transcript of appellant’s plea hearing, does not establish that appellant clearly and knowingly waived his entitlement to additional credit.
We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion and remand for record attachments conclusively refuting appellant’s claim or for the award of additional jail credit as the record dictates.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haines v. State, 851 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Murphy v. State, 930 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)