Ervin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ervin v. State

707 So. 2d 405, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2410, 1998 WL 106984

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2154

StatusPublished

This text of 707 So. 2d 405 (Ervin 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

Ervin v. State, 707 So. 2d 405, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2410, 1998 WL 106984 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion requesting credit for jail time pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.

To the extent that appellant seeks post-sentence jail credit, our affirmance is without prejudice to his right to pursue an administrative remedy. See Reynolds v. State, 590 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). To the extent that appellant seeks pre-sentence jail credit, he has not alleged that the denial of such credit will cause his sentence to exceed the statutory maximum. Therefore, his claim is not cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See Berry v. State, 684 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We recognize that the Second District Court of Appeal continues to permit such claims to be brought pursuant to rule 3.800(a), as reflected in its recent opinion in Swyck v. State, 693 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 699 So.2d 1376 (Fla.1997).

Accordingly, we certify conflict with that decision.

AFFIRMED.

MINER, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion requesting credit for jail time pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.

To the extent that appellant seeks post-sentence jail credit, our affirmance is without prejudice to his right to pursue an administrative remedy. See Reynolds v. State, 590 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). To the extent that appellant seeks pre-sentence jail credit, he has not alleged that the denial of such credit will cause his sentence to exceed the statutory maximum. Therefore, his claim is not cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See Berry v. State, 684 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We recognize that the Second District Court of Appeal continues to permit such claims to be brought pursuant to rule 3.800(a), as reflected in its recent opinion in Swyck v. State, 693 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 699 So.2d 1376 (Fla.1997).

Accordingly, we certify conflict with that decision.

AFFIRMED.

MINER, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

707 So. 2d 405, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2410, 1998 WL 106984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ervin-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack