PATRICK ANDREW COOPER
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the trial court properly denied the appellant's motions because they were legally insufficient.
[1] A motion for correction of jail credit that fails to comply with procedural requirements under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 may be treated as a dismissal with…
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 intelligenceAppellant filed two motions: one to correct jail time credit and another to correct his written sentence to conform with the oral pronouncement. The t…
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 Discrepancy Between Oral And Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed October 8, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0905 Lower Tribunal No. F23-13127
________________
Patrick Andrew Cooper,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Miranda, Judge. Patrick Andrew Cooper, in proper person. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Haccord Curry, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before MILLER, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
2
Patrick Andrew Cooper seeks review of an order denying his motion
for correction of jail credit. We treat the denial as a dismissal and affirm
without prejudice to the filing of a legally sufficient motion pursuant to Florida
Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 within thirty days of the issuance of this
court’s mandate.
Affirmed.