Macool v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Macool v. State

7 So. 3d 637, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3259, 2009 WL 1024593

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 2009

DocketNo. 5D09-341

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 So. 3d 637 (Macool 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

Macool v. State, 7 So. 3d 637, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3259, 2009 WL 1024593 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Hanna Macool appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for additional jail time credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Macool filed a facially sufficient claim for jail credit under rule 3.800 by providing the dates for which he is seeking credit, the date of his sentence, and alleging that the sentencing county’s jail record would show that he is entitled to the credit. Swanson v. State, 825 So.2d 507, 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The trial court denied Macool’s claim for additional credit, but failed to attach any record refuting his claim.

An order denying a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion should include not only “valid reasons for the denial by the trial court, but also attachments of portions of the record sufficient to support the denial. The rule places on the trial court the obligation to attach sufficient portions of the record to refute the defendant’s claim.” Brown v. State, 816 So.2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court to support its denial with record attachments or to grant relief. Should the court conclude that the motion cannot be decided on the face of the record, it should deny the motion without prejudice so that Macool may file a rule 3.850 motion, if one can be timely filed.

REVERSED and REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

PALMER, C.J., SAWAYA and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Hanna Macool appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for additional jail time credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Macool filed a facially sufficient claim for jail credit under rule 3.800 by providing the dates for which he is seeking credit, the date of his sentence, and alleging that the sentencing county’s jail record would show that he is entitled to the credit. Swanson v. State, 825 So.2d 507, 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The trial court denied Macool’s claim for additional credit, but failed to attach any record refuting his claim.

An order denying a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion should include not only “valid reasons for the denial by the trial court, but also attachments of portions of the record sufficient to support the denial. The rule places on the trial court the obligation to attach sufficient portions of the record to refute the defendant’s claim.” Brown v. State, 816 So.2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court to support its denial with record attachments or to grant relief. Should the court conclude that the motion cannot be decided on the face of the record, it should deny the motion without prejudice so that Macool may file a rule 3.850 motion, if one can be timely filed.

REVERSED and REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

PALMER, C.J., SAWAYA and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 So. 3d 637, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3259, 2009 WL 1024593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macool-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack