David Neverson v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

David Neverson v. State of Florida

169 So. 3d 250, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9958, 2015 WL 4002288

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 1, 2015

Docket4D14-4490

StatusPublished

This text of 169 So. 3d 250 (David Neverson v. State of Florida) 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

David Neverson v. State of Florida, 169 So. 3d 250, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9958, 2015 WL 4002288 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s rule 3.801 motion for additional jail credit but for reasons other than those relied on by the trial court. In Neverson v. State, 141 So.3d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), this Court affirmed the denial of a prior rule 3.800 motion without prejudice for appellant to file a timely and legally sufficient rule 3.801 motion. Id. at 626. Appellant filed a timely motion in the trial court. The court summarily denied the motion adopting the State’s response, which mistakenly asserted that the motion was successive. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(d) (prohibiting successive rule 3.801 motions). The motion was not impermissi-bly successive.

We agree with the State’s response in this appeal that appellant’s claim for time served on community control lacks merit. Young v. State, 697 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla.1997). We conclude that appellant’s other claims for additional jail credit are legally insufficient as he failed to provide under oath the information required by the rule. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(c).

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s rule 3.801 motion for additional jail credit but for reasons other than those relied on by the trial court. In Neverson v. State, 141 So.3d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), this Court affirmed the denial of a prior rule 3.800 motion without prejudice for appellant to file a timely and legally sufficient rule 3.801 motion. Id. at 626. Appellant filed a timely motion in the trial court. The court summarily denied the motion adopting the State’s response, which mistakenly asserted that the motion was successive. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(d) (prohibiting successive rule 3.801 motions). The motion was not impermissi-bly successive.

We agree with the State’s response in this appeal that appellant’s claim for time served on community control lacks merit. Young v. State, 697 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla.1997). We conclude that appellant’s other claims for additional jail credit are legally insufficient as he failed to provide under oath the information required by the rule. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(c).

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 So. 3d 250, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9958, 2015 WL 4002288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-neverson-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack