JARMAR JACKSON, 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.
Jarmar Jackson appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging his probation revocation and underlying convictions. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the postconviction court failed to attach the trial court's Rule 3.800(a) order to the record, which was necessary to support its conclusion that Jackson's ineffective assistance claims were facially insufficient.
The appellate court held that the postconviction court erred in failing to attach the trial court's Rule 3.800(a) order to the postconviction motion order when relying on it to find facial insufficiency, and that the postconviction court must either attach record portions that conclusively refute Jackson's claims or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate prejudice resulting from counsel's alleged deficiency.
[2] A postconviction court may deny a claim with prejudice if the claim is refiled but remains facially insufficient.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 trial court's rule 8.800(a) order ruling that Mr. Jackson was not entitled to additional jail credit is neither attached to the postconviction court's rule 3.850 order nor in the record before us.”
Establishes the primary error: the postconviction court relied on a prior order without attaching it to the record for appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson previously filed a motion for additional jail credit under Rule 3.800(a), which the trial court denied. Jackson then filed a Rule 3.850 postco…
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 For Additional Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
Jarmar Jackson appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion for relief from the revocation of his probation and five-year sentence for the underlying convictions. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850.
Mr. Jackson previously filed a motion seeking additional jail credit pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied that motion. Mr. Jackson then filed the rule 3.850 motion alleging that counsel was ineffective at the probation revocation and plea hearing. The postconviction court dismissed the motion, without prejudice, in an order specifically stating that (1) the jail credit claim was facially insufficient because Mr. Jackson failed to allege how counsel’s alleged deficiency prejudiced him, in view of the court’s prior rule 3.800(a) ruling, and (2) Jackson’s second claim — that neither counsel nor the trial court advised him that he would subject himself to conditional release probation— was facially insufficient because the record showed no hearing or entry or acceptance of a plea on the alleged date.
Mr. Jackson filed an amended rule 3.850 motion alleging that his counsel misadvised him and failed to advise the court of the correct amount of jail credit due and that, had counsel done so, the outcome of the sentencing hearing would have been different. The postconviction court denied the amended motion with prejudice because it remained facially insufficient in view of the court’s prior 3.800(a) ruling that Mr. Jackson was not entitled to additional jail credit. See Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding court may properly deny claim with prejudice where claim is refiled but remains insufficient).
*205Mr. Jackson argues that the postconviction court erred in failing to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute his claims. We agree. The trial court’s rule 8.800(a) order ruling that Mr. Jackson was not entitled to additional jail credit is neither attached to the postconviction court’s rule 3.850 order nor in the record before us. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Jackson’s claims or to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
DAVIS and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.