Holley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holley v. State

182 So. 3d 672, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 17418, 2015 WL 7302508

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 20, 2015

DocketNo. 5D15-1782

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 So. 3d 672 (Holley 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

Holley v. State, 182 So. 3d 672, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 17418, 2015 WL 7302508 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Leroy K. Holley appeals- the partial summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801(a) motion to correct jail credit. We conclude the trial court correctly denied the motion as to Holley’s claims for out-of-state jail credit, post-sentencing jail credit, and out-of-county jail credit. However, because the records attached to the trial court’s order do not conclusively refute Holley’s claim [673]*673for credit on November 18, 2010, and December 7-13, 2010, we remand with directions that the trial court either grant Holley the additional eight days credit or attach portions of the record to its order conclusively showing that Holley is not entitled to relief. See Romine v. State, 151 So.3d 553, 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“When a rule 3.801 motion is summarily denied based on the records in the case, a copy of the portion of the files and records that conclusively show that the defendant is not entitled to relief shall be attached to the final order.” (citations omitted)). In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED, with directions.

LAWSON, C.J., ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Leroy K. Holley appeals- the partial summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801(a) motion to correct jail credit. We conclude the trial court correctly denied the motion as to Holley’s claims for out-of-state jail credit, post-sentencing jail credit, and out-of-county jail credit. However, because the records attached to the trial court’s order do not conclusively refute Holley’s claim [673]*673for credit on November 18, 2010, and December 7-13, 2010, we remand with directions that the trial court either grant Holley the additional eight days credit or attach portions of the record to its order conclusively showing that Holley is not entitled to relief. See Romine v. State, 151 So.3d 553, 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“When a rule 3.801 motion is summarily denied based on the records in the case, a copy of the portion of the files and records that conclusively show that the defendant is not entitled to relief shall be attached to the final order.” (citations omitted)). In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED, with directions.

LAWSON, C.J., ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 So. 3d 672, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 17418, 2015 WL 7302508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holley-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack