Hutchins v. State
This text of 750 So. 2d 119 (Hutchins 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.
Opinion
• Alex S. Hutchins appeals the summary denial of his motion for additional jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Despite this court’s previous opinion discouraging the use of rubber stamp denials, the trial court summarily denied Hutchins’ motion with a rubber-stamped “MOTION DENIED,” and a hand written notation, “182 days total credit only.”1 See Parnell v. State, 642 So.2d 1092, 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (stating that “[rjubber stamps may have some use for pretrial motions, but they are usually inappropriate for motions filed under rules 3.800 and 3.850”).
Hutchins’ motion, nevertheless, fails to meet the pleading requirements under State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998). See also Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We, therefore, affirm. Our affirmance is without prejudice to Hutchins raising this issue again in a rule 3.800 motion which meets the pleading requirements of Mancino. Alternatively, he may file a timely and properly sworn motion brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which raises [120]*120this issue, if there are factual issues which need to be resolved.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
750 So. 2d 119, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 17209, 1999 WL 1260151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchins-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.