Michael Mays v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Michael Mays v. State

202 So. 3d 114, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15205

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 14, 2016

Docket5D16-2126

StatusPublished

This text of 202 So. 3d 114 (Michael Mays 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

Michael Mays v. State, 202 So. 3d 114, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15205 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Mays appeals the summary denial of his motion for correction of jail credit. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801. Because the trial court failed to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Mays’ claim, we would normally reverse and remand for attachment of those records or for an evidentiary hearing. See Adkins v. State, 183 So.3d 1102, 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“Under Rule 3.801, if a *115 defendant files a legally sufficient motion, the trial court should grant the additional credit or conduct an evidentiary healing, unless the motion can be conclusively refuted either as a matter of law or by reliance upon the records in the case. If the summary denial is based on the records in the case, a copy of the portion of the files and records that conclusively proves that the defendant is not entitled to relief shall be attached to the final order.”). However, because Mays’ motion is facially insufficient for failing to contain an oath as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801(c), we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court enter a nonfinal, nonappealable order dismissing the motion and allowing Mays 60 days to amend. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); see also Belanger v. State, 146 So.3d 136, 137-38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (addressing the procedure that should be followed by trial courts when a defendant files a timely but facially insufficient rule 3.801 motion disputing the amount of jail credit awarded).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Mays appeals the summary denial of his motion for correction of jail credit. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801. Because the trial court failed to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Mays’ claim, we would normally reverse and remand for attachment of those records or for an evidentiary hearing. See Adkins v. State, 183 So.3d 1102, 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“Under Rule 3.801, if a *115 defendant files a legally sufficient motion, the trial court should grant the additional credit or conduct an evidentiary healing, unless the motion can be conclusively refuted either as a matter of law or by reliance upon the records in the case. If the summary denial is based on the records in the case, a copy of the portion of the files and records that conclusively proves that the defendant is not entitled to relief shall be attached to the final order.”). However, because Mays’ motion is facially insufficient for failing to contain an oath as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801(c), we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court enter a nonfinal, nonappealable order dismissing the motion and allowing Mays 60 days to amend. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); see also Belanger v. State, 146 So.3d 136, 137-38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (addressing the procedure that should be followed by trial courts when a defendant files a timely but facially insufficient rule 3.801 motion disputing the amount of jail credit awarded).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 So. 3d 114, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-mays-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack