Chitty v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chitty v. State

834 So. 2d 909, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 114, 2003 WL 57024

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 8, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-3731

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 834 So. 2d 909 (Chitty 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

Chitty v. State, 834 So. 2d 909, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 114, 2003 WL 57024 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for more jail credit, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand with instructions. The appellant claims that he was arrested on two charges in two separate cases on the same day, and that he was later sentenced on both charges at the same time. Although the appellant has attached record excerpts that show that he was arrested and sentenced on the same days on both charges and that he received disparate jail credit for these two cases, the trial court denied the appellant’s claim as failing to direct the court to portions of the record demonstrating an entitlement to relief. However, the appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim pursuant to rule 3.800(a) and his record attachments satisfy the requirements of Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167, 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial and remand for further consideration of the appellant’s claim pursuant to Daniels v. State, 491 So.2d 543, 545 (Fla.1986). If the trial court again denies the appellant’s claim for more jail credit, it must attach record excerpts conclusively establishing that the appellant is not entitled to relief.

REVERSED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

ERVIN, DAVIS, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for more jail credit, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand with instructions. The appellant claims that he was arrested on two charges in two separate cases on the same day, and that he was later sentenced on both charges at the same time. Although the appellant has attached record excerpts that show that he was arrested and sentenced on the same days on both charges and that he received disparate jail credit for these two cases, the trial court denied the appellant’s claim as failing to direct the court to portions of the record demonstrating an entitlement to relief. However, the appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim pursuant to rule 3.800(a) and his record attachments satisfy the requirements of Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167, 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial and remand for further consideration of the appellant’s claim pursuant to Daniels v. State, 491 So.2d 543, 545 (Fla.1986). If the trial court again denies the appellant’s claim for more jail credit, it must attach record excerpts conclusively establishing that the appellant is not entitled to relief.

REVERSED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

ERVIN, DAVIS, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

834 So. 2d 909, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 114, 2003 WL 57024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chitty-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack