Hampton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hampton v. State

780 So. 2d 922, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 499, 2001 WL 60887

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-1714

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 780 So. 2d 922 (Hampton 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

Hampton v. State, 780 So. 2d 922, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 499, 2001 WL 60887 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges an order denying his claims for postconviction relief. We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s claims that he is entitled to additional jail credit and that his cumulative incarceration exceeds the statutory maximum. However, appellant also claims that his latest sentence exceeds the guidelines recommendation and that he did not receive the proper amount of prison credit. Because the record does not conclusively refute these allegations, we reverse the summary denial of those two claims. On remand, the trial court is directed to evaluate appellant’s prison credit claim in light of Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941 (Fla.1993), and Staschak v. State, 718 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Should the trial court again deny the appellant’s remaining claims, it must attach portions of the record conclusively demonstrating that the appellant is not entitled to relief. The order denying relief is affirmed in all other respects.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED with directions.

BENTON, PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges an order denying his claims for postconviction relief. We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s claims that he is entitled to additional jail credit and that his cumulative incarceration exceeds the statutory maximum. However, appellant also claims that his latest sentence exceeds the guidelines recommendation and that he did not receive the proper amount of prison credit. Because the record does not conclusively refute these allegations, we reverse the summary denial of those two claims. On remand, the trial court is directed to evaluate appellant’s prison credit claim in light of Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941 (Fla.1993), and Staschak v. State, 718 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Should the trial court again deny the appellant’s remaining claims, it must attach portions of the record conclusively demonstrating that the appellant is not entitled to relief. The order denying relief is affirmed in all other respects.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED with directions.

BENTON, PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

780 So. 2d 922, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 499, 2001 WL 60887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hampton-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack