Edward Holton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Edward Holton v. State

159 So. 3d 197, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1845, 2015 WL 548177

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 2015

Docket4D14-2973

StatusPublished

This text of 159 So. 3d 197 (Edward Holton 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

Edward Holton v. State, 159 So. 3d 197, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1845, 2015 WL 548177 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Edward Holton appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion and his amended rule 3.850 motion, and granting his motion to clarify sentence. In recommending how to clarify Holton’s sentence, the State’s response filed below set forth the specific time periods for which it determined Holton was entitled to jail credit for time served. Within his reply to that response, filed in April ,2014, Holton raised a new claim of entitlement to credit for an additional period. In the order on appeal, the trial court specifically addressed that claim and summarily denied it on the merits. We affirm without discussion as to all grounds other than the jail credit claim.

The jail credit claim would have been timely if filed as a rule 3.801 motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(b) (“For sentences imposed prior to July 1, 2013, a motion under this rule may be filed on or before July 1, 2014.”). The trial court purportedly attached to the order of denial record documents refuting the claim. However, no such documents were actually attached. In response to this Court’s order to show cause, the State agrees the cause should be remanded for the trial court to attach those records.

We reverse only the denial of the jail credit claim raised in Holton’s reply, and remand for further proceedings.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

CIKLIN, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Edward Holton appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion and his amended rule 3.850 motion, and granting his motion to clarify sentence. In recommending how to clarify Holton’s sentence, the State’s response filed below set forth the specific time periods for which it determined Holton was entitled to jail credit for time served. Within his reply to that response, filed in April ,2014, Holton raised a new claim of entitlement to credit for an additional period. In the order on appeal, the trial court specifically addressed that claim and summarily denied it on the merits. We affirm without discussion as to all grounds other than the jail credit claim.

The jail credit claim would have been timely if filed as a rule 3.801 motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(b) (“For sentences imposed prior to July 1, 2013, a motion under this rule may be filed on or before July 1, 2014.”). The trial court purportedly attached to the order of denial record documents refuting the claim. However, no such documents were actually attached. In response to this Court’s order to show cause, the State agrees the cause should be remanded for the trial court to attach those records.

We reverse only the denial of the jail credit claim raised in Holton’s reply, and remand for further proceedings.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

CIKLIN, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 So. 3d 197, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1845, 2015 WL 548177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-holton-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.