Borum v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Borum v. State

801 So. 2d 167, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16677, 2001 WL 1503982

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 28, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-4377

StatusPublished

This text of 801 So. 2d 167 (Borum 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

Borum v. State, 801 So. 2d 167, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16677, 2001 WL 1503982 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SALCINES, Judge.

Derrick Borum appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm.

Borum contends in his motion that he is entitled to 138 days’ jail credit for time served in prison and county jail from the date a detainer was placed against him to the date he was sentenced. Because Bo-rum failed to allege in his motion that the trial court records on their face demonstrate that he is entitled to relief, his claim is facially insufficient. Deese v. State, 782 So.2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The trial court’s denial of his motion is therefore affirmed without prejudice to Borum’s right to file a facially sufficient motion for jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal [168]*168Procedure 3.800(a). If he is unable to demonstrate that the merits of his motion can be determined from the court records, Borum is entitled to raise the issue in a timely, facially sufficient motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850. Amos v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D2201 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept 12, 2001).

Affirmed.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.

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

SALCINES, Judge.

Derrick Borum appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm.

Borum contends in his motion that he is entitled to 138 days’ jail credit for time served in prison and county jail from the date a detainer was placed against him to the date he was sentenced. Because Bo-rum failed to allege in his motion that the trial court records on their face demonstrate that he is entitled to relief, his claim is facially insufficient. Deese v. State, 782 So.2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The trial court’s denial of his motion is therefore affirmed without prejudice to Borum’s right to file a facially sufficient motion for jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal [168]*168Procedure 3.800(a). If he is unable to demonstrate that the merits of his motion can be determined from the court records, Borum is entitled to raise the issue in a timely, facially sufficient motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850. Amos v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D2201 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept 12, 2001).

Affirmed.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

801 So. 2d 167, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16677, 2001 WL 1503982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borum-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack