McCloud v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCloud v. State

638 So. 2d 636, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6653, 1994 WL 321701

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 6, 1994

DocketNo. 94-01742

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 638 So. 2d 636 (McCloud 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

McCloud v. State, 638 So. 2d 636, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6653, 1994 WL 321701 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jimmy McCloud appeals from an order denying his “motion to correct jail-time.” We reverse.

He alleges that he is entitled to receive the same 333 days’ credit in case no. 90-3279 as he received in case no. 85-3259. The trial court denied the motion based on the appellant’s arrest and sentencing dates in case no. 90-3279. If the appellant was not arrested for the charges brought in case no. 90-3279 until the date provided in the order, then the trial court correctly denied relief. See Keene v. State, 500 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (for each sentence, defendant entitled only to credit for time spent in jail for charge which led to that sentence). The court, however, failed to attach any documentation evidencing the arrest and sentencing dates. See Summerall v. State, 637 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order. On remand, if the court again denies relief, it must attach portions of its records that refute the appellant’s allegations. If the appellant is aggrieved by any subsequent action of the trial court, he must file a timely notice of appeal to obtain further appellate review.

Reversed and remanded.

RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jimmy McCloud appeals from an order denying his “motion to correct jail-time.” We reverse.

He alleges that he is entitled to receive the same 333 days’ credit in case no. 90-3279 as he received in case no. 85-3259. The trial court denied the motion based on the appellant’s arrest and sentencing dates in case no. 90-3279. If the appellant was not arrested for the charges brought in case no. 90-3279 until the date provided in the order, then the trial court correctly denied relief. See Keene v. State, 500 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (for each sentence, defendant entitled only to credit for time spent in jail for charge which led to that sentence). The court, however, failed to attach any documentation evidencing the arrest and sentencing dates. See Summerall v. State, 637 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order. On remand, if the court again denies relief, it must attach portions of its records that refute the appellant’s allegations. If the appellant is aggrieved by any subsequent action of the trial court, he must file a timely notice of appeal to obtain further appellate review.

Reversed and remanded.

RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

638 So. 2d 636, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6653, 1994 WL 321701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccloud-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack