WACO LINN ALLUMS, 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.
Trial court erred in summarily denying a Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging an illegal sentence where the defendant alleged the written judgment failed to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement awarding prison credit for probation violation.
A claim for additional prison credit is cognizable in a Rule 3.800(a) motion when the defendant affirmatively alleges that court records demonstrate entitlement to relief on their face.
[1] A claim for additional prison credit against a sentence is cognizable in a Rule 3.800(a) motion when the defendant affirmatively alleges that court records demonstrate en…
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“credit time issues are cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief”
Court cited State v. Mancino for the proposition that credit time issues are cognizable in Rule 3.800 motions under specified conditions.
Appellant Allums received a sentence for probation violation. The written sentence and judgment documents allegedly failed to reflect the trial court'…
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 Prison Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). According to the appellant, the sentence and judgment documents apparently failed to reflect the trial court’s orally pronounced sentencing intent, which was that the appellant was to receive prison credit against his sentence for violation of probation. The trial court summarily denied the appellant’s motion, stating only that his claim is incognizable via a rule 3.800 motion.
Because “[a] claim for additional credit is cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion,” the trial court was incorrect in denying the appellant’s motion. See Robinson v. State, 786 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(eiting State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla. 1998) for the proposition that “credit time issues are cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief’).
We accordingly reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to either attach record excerpts that conclusively refute the appellant’s allegation, or to grant the relief sought.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
KAHN, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Robinson v. State, 786 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Given IN Love Adoptions, Inc. v. Ball, 786 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)