Crawford v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crawford v. State

77 So. 3d 807, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20640, 2011 WL 6783159

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 2011

Docket3D11-2401

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 So. 3d 807 (Crawford 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

Crawford v. State, 77 So. 3d 807, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20640, 2011 WL 6783159 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEPHERD, J.

The defendant, Patrick Crawford, appeals a summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, in which he seeks additional credit for jail time served. On December 6, 2010, the defendant admitted to violating his probation in exchange for “thirty months in state prison with credit from the last booking date.” In his motion, the defendant seeks an additional 415 days of credit for *808 time spent incarcerated prior to his violation of probation, arguing he never waived this credit.

As this argument is not cognizable under a rule 3.800(a) motion, we affirm without prejudice for the defendant to file a timely Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.850 motion challenging his plea on this basis, should he choose to do so. See Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla.2011) (holding that challenges to plea agreement provisions concerning credit for time served are not cognizable in rule 3.800(a) motions because they present factual questions that cannot be resolved on the basis of trial court records.)

Affirmed without prejudice.

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

SHEPHERD, J.

The defendant, Patrick Crawford, appeals a summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, in which he seeks additional credit for jail time served. On December 6, 2010, the defendant admitted to violating his probation in exchange for “thirty months in state prison with credit from the last booking date.” In his motion, the defendant seeks an additional 415 days of credit for *808 time spent incarcerated prior to his violation of probation, arguing he never waived this credit.

As this argument is not cognizable under a rule 3.800(a) motion, we affirm without prejudice for the defendant to file a timely Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.850 motion challenging his plea on this basis, should he choose to do so. See Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla.2011) (holding that challenges to plea agreement provisions concerning credit for time served are not cognizable in rule 3.800(a) motions because they present factual questions that cannot be resolved on the basis of trial court records.)

Affirmed without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 3d 807, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20640, 2011 WL 6783159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack