Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Hoag v. State

Hoag v. State

742 So. 2d 348, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10688, 1999 WL 599236
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hoag v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 801 So. 2d 207 →
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 11, 1999·No. No. 99-01556·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Cindy Hoffman Hoag appeals the summary denial of her request for jail credit, which the trial court treated as a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm because her motion failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Hoag’s ability to file a proper [349]*349rule 3.800(a) motion in the trial court which alleges that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief. See Spivey v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1681, 737 So.2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Crompton v. State, 728 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Affirmed.

FULMER, A.C.J., and STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

i

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

Hoag v. State, 742 So. 2d 348, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10688, 1999 WL 599236 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

742 So. 2d 348 (Hoag v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Mancino
714 So. 2d 429 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)
Crompton v. State
728 So. 2d 1188 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Spivey v. State
737 So. 2d 604 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)