JAMES A. SANDERS, 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 the defendant's petition for jail time credit because the petition failed to specify the dates of trial, plea, conviction, and sentencing necessary to calculate the claimed credit, but allowed the defendant to refile without prejudice under the proper procedural rules.
A petition for jail time credit must specifically state the dates of trial, plea, conviction, and sentencing to enable the court to determine the number of days of credit claimed.
[1] A petition for jail time credit must specify the dates of trial, plea, conviction, and sentencing; a claim that a defendant was denied jail time credit attacks the legali…
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“a claim by a defendant that he did not receive all of his jail time credit attacks the sentence as being illegal and this matter can be raised at any time and is not barred by the sixty-day time stricture of rule 3.800(b)”
The court noted that illegal sentence claims are not subject to procedural time limitations.
Defendant Sanders sought credit for jail time but provided only his arrest date without specifying when he was tried, entered a plea, or was convicted…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s petition to allow credit for jail time without prejudice to the defendant to file a motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a) or rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Terry v. State, 567 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We affirm the denial of defendant’s petition on the ground that the petition does not specifically state when defendant was tried or, if applicable, when he entered a plea and was convicted and sentenced on the Orange County charges. The only specific information furnished by defendant is the date of his arrest. Because of this failure this court is unable to establish how many days of jail credit defendant is claiming that he has been denied. In Terry, the defendant did specify all of these matters in his motion and we ordered that defendant be afforded an evidentiary hearing.
We note that a claim by a defendant that he did not receive all of his jail time credit attacks the sentence as being illegal and this matter can be raised at any time and is not barred by the sixty-day time stricture of rule 3.800(b). Martin v. State, 525 So. 2d 901, 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of defendant’s petition without prejudice to raise the issue of the number of days of jail time credit to which he is entitled under a proper motion filed under either rule 3.800(a) or rule 3.850.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)…held that “a sentence which does not allow for proper credit is an illegal sentence” as defined by the rule. See Jones, 635 So. 2d at 42; Rouse, 643 So. 2d at 1160; Moorer v. State, 556 So. 2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); see also Sanders v. State, 579 So. 2d 326, 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (noting that “a claim by a defendant that he did not receive all of his jail time credit attacks the sentence as being illegal and ... can be raised at any time”); Martin v. State, 525 So. 2d 901, 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (op…
-
Thomas v. State, 611 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) or 3.850. The case law reflects some ambiguity as to which rule of criminal procedure should be employed to file a motion for jail credit. See Martin v. State, 525 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Sanders v. State, 579 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Morgan v. State, 557 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The Fifth District has expressly recognized that either motion may be appropriate. See Sanders. Depending on the circumstances, this court has also resolved jail credit issues…
-
Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…jail-time credit is claimed. See Morgan v. State, 557 So. 2d 605, 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Baranko, 516 So. 2d at 333 n. 1; Littlejohn, 616 So. 2d at 130; Thomas, 611 So. 2d 211; Mathews v. State, 596 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Sanders v. State, 579 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Terry, 567 So. 2d 1050. Appellant in this case alleged the specific dates and periods of time involved in his claims for jail-time credit, thereby suggesting the issue is determinable by a review of the circuit court records. I…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin v. State, 525 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Terry v. State, 567 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)