Joeb v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Joeb v. State

822 So. 2d 554, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10676, 2002 WL 1724007

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 26, 2002

DocketNo. 2D02-2088

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 822 So. 2d 554 (Joeb 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

Joeb v. State, 822 So. 2d 554, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10676, 2002 WL 1724007 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SALCINES, Judge.

Mary Beth Joeb challenges the order of the trial court denying her motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule-of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Joeb did not allege that any error in jail credit is reviewable from the face of the record, and she therefore did not present a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) jail credit claim. See Searight v. State, 795 So.2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We affirm the order of the trial court on this basis. The trial court, however, addressed the claim on its merits. Ip denying the claim, the trial court failed to attach the sheriffs jail log, and the attachments to the trial court’s order do not conclusively refute Joeb’s claim.

Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Joeb might have to file a facially sufficient motion for jail credit pursuant to rule 3.800(a) or a timely, facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Searight, 795 So.2d 988. If Joeb files a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion and the trial court again denies the claim, it shall attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim. See Whitt v. State, 807 So.2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Should Joeb file a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion, the trial court shall either attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed.

WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

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

SALCINES, Judge.

Mary Beth Joeb challenges the order of the trial court denying her motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule-of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Joeb did not allege that any error in jail credit is reviewable from the face of the record, and she therefore did not present a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) jail credit claim. See Searight v. State, 795 So.2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We affirm the order of the trial court on this basis. The trial court, however, addressed the claim on its merits. Ip denying the claim, the trial court failed to attach the sheriffs jail log, and the attachments to the trial court’s order do not conclusively refute Joeb’s claim.

Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Joeb might have to file a facially sufficient motion for jail credit pursuant to rule 3.800(a) or a timely, facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Searight, 795 So.2d 988. If Joeb files a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion and the trial court again denies the claim, it shall attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim. See Whitt v. State, 807 So.2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Should Joeb file a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion, the trial court shall either attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed.

WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

822 So. 2d 554, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 10676, 2002 WL 1724007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joeb-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack