Jarrett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jarrett v. State

89 So. 3d 293, 2012 WL 1956543, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8804

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 2012

DocketNo. 5D12-529

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 89 So. 3d 293 (Jarrett 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

Jarrett v. State, 89 So. 3d 293, 2012 WL 1956543, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8804 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PALMER, J.

William H. Jarrett (defendant) appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm, writing only to explain why we reject the State’s concession of error.

The State has conceded that the' order should be reversed because the trial court did not attach record documents conclusively refuting the defendant’s claim. However, our supreme court recently explained in Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1051 & n. 2 (Fla.2011), that rule 3.800(a) does not require the trial court to attach record documents. Rather, “[a]n appellate court should affirm the summary denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion whenever the appellate court’s review of the record establishes that the defendant did not satisfy the burden of showing entitlement to relief on the face of the record.” Id. n. 2.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, C.J., and MONACO, J., concur.

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

PALMER, J.

William H. Jarrett (defendant) appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm, writing only to explain why we reject the State’s concession of error.

The State has conceded that the' order should be reversed because the trial court did not attach record documents conclusively refuting the defendant’s claim. However, our supreme court recently explained in Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1051 & n. 2 (Fla.2011), that rule 3.800(a) does not require the trial court to attach record documents. Rather, “[a]n appellate court should affirm the summary denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion whenever the appellate court’s review of the record establishes that the defendant did not satisfy the burden of showing entitlement to relief on the face of the record.” Id. n. 2.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, C.J., and MONACO, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 3d 293, 2012 WL 1956543, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarrett-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack