SALEM LEFILS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
SALEM LEFILS, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
831 So. 2d 223
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2002)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
SHARP, W., J., dissents, with opinion.
Dissent
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The defendant appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion for additional jail time credit. Athough defendant’s motion (and amended motion) are far from clear, it appears the defendant is seeking jail time credit for time he spent on other separate charges.
When a defendant makes a prima facie claim for jail time credit, the trial court has the burden of attaching portions of the record to refute the claim. See Moore v. State, 741 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for attachment of portions of the record to refute the defendant’s claim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Legacy Place Apt. Homes, LLC. v. PGA Gateway, Ltd., 65 So. 3d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…connection fee is generally considered to be a type of impact fee charged by utility companies for initiating new service. See, e.g., Save Our Septic Sys. Comm., Inc. v. Sarasota Cnty., 957 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); City of Zephyrhills v. Wood, 831 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Thus, we conclude that the [*645] connection fee credit received from the utility company was an “impact fee credit,” and appellant was entitled to a share of that credit. On remand, any judgment in favor of appellee must be…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 741 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)