AFFENITO v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

AFFENITO v. State

25 So. 3d 696, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 295, 2010 WL 178938

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 2010

Docket2D08-6140

StatusPublished

This text of 25 So. 3d 696 (AFFENITO v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

AFFENITO v. State, 25 So. 3d 696, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 295, 2010 WL 178938 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

CRENSHAW, Judge.

Christopher Affenito appeals the denial of his motions for jail credit filed pursuant *697 to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Affenito, in part, sought 77 days of jail credit in case 01-6403 for time he spent in jail from July 26, 2002, to October 11, 2002. We find the resolution of this jail credit claim requires factual determinations that are not apparent in the record and cannot be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Ericson v. State, 932 So.2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s orders without prejudice to any right Affenito may have to file a timely and facially sufficient sworn motion seeking jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Id. Such motion should not be deemed successive. Id. Finally, because the time for Affenito to file a rule 3.850 motion expired during the pendency of this appeal, “we authorize him to file a motion pursuant to rule 3.850 within sixty days from the date of the mandate issued in this proceeding, which motion the trial court should treat as timely filed.” Clifton v. State, 905 So.2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Affirmed.

WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRENSHAW, Judge.

Christopher Affenito appeals the denial of his motions for jail credit filed pursuant *697 to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Affenito, in part, sought 77 days of jail credit in case 01-6403 for time he spent in jail from July 26, 2002, to October 11, 2002. We find the resolution of this jail credit claim requires factual determinations that are not apparent in the record and cannot be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Ericson v. State, 932 So.2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s orders without prejudice to any right Affenito may have to file a timely and facially sufficient sworn motion seeking jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Id. Such motion should not be deemed successive. Id. Finally, because the time for Affenito to file a rule 3.850 motion expired during the pendency of this appeal, “we authorize him to file a motion pursuant to rule 3.850 within sixty days from the date of the mandate issued in this proceeding, which motion the trial court should treat as timely filed.” Clifton v. State, 905 So.2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Affirmed.

WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 So. 3d 696, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 295, 2010 WL 178938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/affenito-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack