JERETT JUSTUS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A postconviction motion for jail credit that is facially insufficient must be remanded to allow the defendant an opportunity to amend before the trial court rules on the merits.
[1] A postconviction motion for jail credit that is facially insufficient must be remanded to allow the defendant an opportunity to amend the motion before the trial court ru…
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 intelligenceJustus was arrested in the instant case while in custody in another county for unrelated charges and sought postconviction jail credit. He attached su…
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 Credit For Jail Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JERETT JUSTUS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-1903
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed December 20, 2019
3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.
Jerett Justus, Milton, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Jerett Justus, appeals the denial of his postconviction motion claiming entitlement to additional jail credit. In his motion, Appellant alleged that he was actually arrested in the instant case while in custody in another county for unrelated charges, and he attached documents to support his claim.
2
The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that “[a] defendant is only entitled to credit for time served after an actual arrest when a warrant has been served, not from the date of a detainer.” Appellant argues that the trial court’s reasoning is flawed because he alleged an actual arrest, and not that he was simply subject to a detainer. See Elkins v. State, 884 So. 2d 499, 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
We do not reach the merits of Appellant’s arguments on appeal, however, because we observe that his motion was facially insufficient, and he has not yet received an opportunity to amend. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court grant Appellant leave to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. REVERSED and REMANDED.
EVANDER, C.J., EISNAUGLE and SASSO, JJ., concur.