Bashara v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bashara v. State

219 So. 3d 1013, 2017 WL 2560996, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8652

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 2017

DocketCase 2D16-5455

StatusPublished

This text of 219 So. 3d 1013 (Bashara 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

Bashara v. State, 219 So. 3d 1013, 2017 WL 2560996, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8652 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Brian Bashara challenges the order denying his motion for jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. We reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for the court to strike Bashara’s motion and grant him sixty days to file a sufficiently pleaded amended motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(e) (incorporating, in pertinent part, rule 3.850(f)(2)).

In his motion for jail credit, Bashara simply asserted that the court file conclusively demonstrated that his award of jail credit was deficient by 200 days; he did not include the detailed facts and allegations required by rule 3.801(c)(l)-(5). Rather than striking the facially insuffi *1014 cient motion and allowing Bashara to amend it as required by rule 3.801(e), the postconviction court entered a detailed order with record attachments finding that Bashara was not entitled to any more jail credit than he was awarded.

On appeal, Bashara filed an initial brief making detailed allegations concerning his claim of jail credit deficiency that the attachments to the postconviction court’s order do not refute. Because the postconviction court did not provide Bashara with an opportunity to amend his facially insufficient motion, we reverse and remand with directions for the court to allow Bashara sixty days to amend his motion to comply with rule 3.801(c).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

LaROSE, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Brian Bashara challenges the order denying his motion for jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. We reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for the court to strike Bashara’s motion and grant him sixty days to file a sufficiently pleaded amended motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(e) (incorporating, in pertinent part, rule 3.850(f)(2)).

In his motion for jail credit, Bashara simply asserted that the court file conclusively demonstrated that his award of jail credit was deficient by 200 days; he did not include the detailed facts and allegations required by rule 3.801(c)(l)-(5). Rather than striking the facially insuffi *1014 cient motion and allowing Bashara to amend it as required by rule 3.801(e), the postconviction court entered a detailed order with record attachments finding that Bashara was not entitled to any more jail credit than he was awarded.

On appeal, Bashara filed an initial brief making detailed allegations concerning his claim of jail credit deficiency that the attachments to the postconviction court’s order do not refute. Because the postconviction court did not provide Bashara with an opportunity to amend his facially insufficient motion, we reverse and remand with directions for the court to allow Bashara sixty days to amend his motion to comply with rule 3.801(c).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

LaROSE, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 So. 3d 1013, 2017 WL 2560996, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bashara-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.