Jennings v. State

790 So. 2d 1191, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10633, 2001 WL 844732
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jennings v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 744 So. 2d 1126
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 27, 2001·No. No. 2D01-1052·Published

Opinion

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

Anthony Jennings appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Jennings alleges he is entitled to additional jail credit in case numbers 97-9236 and 99-13068. Specifically, he alleges, he was awarded eighty days’ jail credit for time served but is actually entitled to 224 days. The form motion Jennings filed failed to state a facially sufficient claim because it did not state that the claim could be determined without an evidentiary hearing and did not state “how his claim is established in the records available to the trial court.” Rolon v. State, 787 So.2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to Jennings’ right to file a facially sufficient claim under rule 3.800(a) or, if there is a factual dispute, a timely and sufficient motion under rule 3.850.

Affirmed.

STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

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

Jennings v. State, 790 So. 2d 1191, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10633, 2001 WL 844732 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

790 So. 2d 1191 (Jennings v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rolon v. State
787 So. 2d 65 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)