Loeffler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Loeffler v. State

832 So. 2d 261, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 18096, 2002 WL 31757268

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 11, 2002·No. No. 2D02-2946·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Vance Loeffler challenges the orders of the trial court summarily denying his motions filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and 3.800(a). We affirm. Our affirmance of Loeffler’s rule 3.800(a) motion for jail credit is without prejudice to any right Loeffler might have to file a timely, facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion seeking credit against his prison sentence in the present case for time spent in the custody of the Department of Corrections from the date any Highlands County detainer was lodged against him. See Keene v. State, 816 So.2d 819, 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Affirmed.

WHATLEY and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Vance Loeffler challenges the orders of the trial court summarily denying his motions filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and 3.800(a). We affirm. Our affirmance of Loeffler’s rule 3.800(a) motion for jail credit is without prejudice to any right Loeffler might have to file a timely, facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion seeking credit against his prison sentence in the present case for time spent in the custody of the Department of Corrections from the date any Highlands County detainer was lodged against him. See Keene v. State, 816 So.2d 819, 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Affirmed.

WHATLEY and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

Loeffler v. State, 832 So. 2d 261, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 18096, 2002 WL 31757268 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

832 So. 2d 261 (Loeffler v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related