Locke v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Locke v. State

787 So. 2d 104, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4484, 2001 WL 332035

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Locke v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 719 So. 2d 1249 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 6, 2001·No. No. 2D00-724·Published

Opinion

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.

Donald Ray Locke appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand only as to Locke’s claim that he is entitled to credit for time served for the time he was detained in Escambia County pursuant to the Highlands County warrant. See Bryant v. State, 787 So.2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (en banc) (holding that defendant entitled to credit for time served in another county from the date the de-tainer is placed on him, even if not officially arrested). Because the trial court’s order does not include any attachments that conclusively refute Locke’s claim on this issue, we reverse. On remand, the trial court shall either grant relief or attach documents that conclusively refute Locke’s claim. We affirm the denial of Locke’s other claims.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

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

BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.

Donald Ray Locke appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand only as to Locke’s claim that he is entitled to credit for time served for the time he was detained in Escambia County pursuant to the Highlands County warrant. See Bryant v. State, 787 So.2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (en banc) (holding that defendant entitled to credit for time served in another county from the date the de-tainer is placed on him, even if not officially arrested). Because the trial court’s order does not include any attachments that conclusively refute Locke’s claim on this issue, we reverse. On remand, the trial court shall either grant relief or attach documents that conclusively refute Locke’s claim. We affirm the denial of Locke’s other claims.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

Locke v. State, 787 So. 2d 104, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4484, 2001 WL 332035 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

787 So. 2d 104 (Locke v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related