Clingenpeel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Clingenpeel v. State

610 So. 2d 75, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12429, 1992 WL 362183

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 9, 1992

DocketNo. 92-03652

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 610 So. 2d 75 (Clingenpeel 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

Clingenpeel v. State, 610 So. 2d 75, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12429, 1992 WL 362183 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gary Lee Clingenpeel appeals the denial of his motion for correction of sentence which sought credit of previously earned gain time pursuant to Green v. State, 547 So.2d 925 (Fla.1989). We reverse.

The appellant contends that he did not receive credit for gain-time earned when he was incarcerated on his original sentence. If this allegation is true, he may be entitled to relief. The trial court’s order fails to address the credit sought pursuant to Green.

Accordingly, we reverse the order of denial and remand for further proceedings. Should the trial court again deny the motion on remand, then it must attach portions of the record that refute the appellant’s allegation. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

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