BOYD LYNN RAFFERTY, 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.
Boyd Lynn Rafferty appealed the denial of his motion to correct sentence, arguing he was entitled to credit for time served in a North Carolina jail. The Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding that Rafferty failed to raise the issue at sentencing and cannot present new evidence on appeal.
The court affirmed the denial of Rafferty's motion, holding that because he agreed to the specific credit terms in his plea agreement and failed to raise the North Carolina jail time issue at sentencing, he is not entitled to additional credit. Additionally, the court cannot consider new evidence presented for the first time on appeal.
[1] A defendant waiving presentence investigation and agreeing to a specific sentence, including a specific amount of credit for time served, generally cannot later seek to c…
[2] A defendant must present evidence of out-of-state incarceration related to the crime to the trial court for consideration to preserve the issue for appellate review.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Rule 3.800(a) is intended to provide relief for a narrow category of cases in which the sentence imposes a penalty that is simply not authorized by law”
Establishes the limited scope of Rule 3.800(a) motions to correct sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRafferty entered a plea agreement and was sentenced on January 15, 1992, to five years incarceration with credit for 36 days in Volusia County jail. O…
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 To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*947] PETERSON, Judge.
Boyd Lynn Rafferty entered into a plea agreement with the assistance of an attorney and was sentenced pursuant to the terms of the agreement on January 15, 1992. He waived a presentenee investigation and agreed to a sentence of five years incarceration with credit for 36 days accumulated in the Volusia County jail.
Two years and three months later, he filed a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a),1 complaining that the sentencing court failed to give him credit for time spent in a John-' ston, North Carolina, jail from July 16, 1991 until December 16, 1991. He does not explain in the motion why the time spent in a North Carolina jail is related to the sentence he received in Florida on January 15, 1992.
Apparently the trial court that summarily denied Rafferty’s 3.800 motion was puzzled' by the allegation that the North Carolina jail time should have been credited. The order of denial related the facts set forth above and concluded that since Rafferty agreed to the sentence, including the specific credit of 36 days, no relief was warranted.
While this comí was reviewing this appeal, Rafferty directed a letter to this court’s clerk attaching a copy of a purported Daytona Beach Police Department incident report that he says supports his contention that credit for the North Carolina incarceration is proper. Rafferty and all pro se litigants should be made aware that such an attempt to present evidence to this court is highly improper and we will not consider it. This court exists to review what an appellant perceives to be an error committed by the lower tribunal. If evidence of out-of-state incarceration related to the crime for which Rafferty’s instant sentence was imposed was not submitted to the trial court for consideration, the trial court could not err on that score. If error exists, it was on Rafferty’s part for failing to bring the issue of out-of-state credit to the attention of the sentencing court when he entered his plea.
We affirm the denial of Rafferty’s motion.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . We note Judge Altenbernd’s conclusion that “Rule 3.800(a) is intended to provide relief for a narrow category of cases in which the sentence imposes a penalty that is simply not authorized by law” and "is designed to test issues that should not include significant questions of fact or require a lengthy evidentiary hearing.” Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (Altenbernd, J., concurring), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1992).