Nazario v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nazario v. State

188 So. 3d 975, 2016 WL 1465654, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5761

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 2016

DocketNo. 5D15-2897

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 188 So. 3d 975 (Nazario 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

Nazario v. State, 188 So. 3d 975, 2016 WL 1465654, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5761 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct jail credit from multiple criminal cases originating in Orange County, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. Appellant’s motion did not comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 3.801(c). Despite this deficiency, the trial court denied Appellant’s claim on the merits. When a defendant [976]*976files a facially insufficient Rule 3.801 motion, “the court must enter a non-final, non-appealable order allowing the defendant sixty days to amend the motion.” Adkins v. State, 183 So.3d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). We reverse the trial court’s summary denial and remand to provide Appellant sixty days to amend his motion. See Delorenzo v. State, 179 So.3d 550, 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.

SAWAYA, WALLIS, LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct jail credit from multiple criminal cases originating in Orange County, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. Appellant’s motion did not comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 3.801(c). Despite this deficiency, the trial court denied Appellant’s claim on the merits. When a defendant [976]*976files a facially insufficient Rule 3.801 motion, “the court must enter a non-final, non-appealable order allowing the defendant sixty days to amend the motion.” Adkins v. State, 183 So.3d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). We reverse the trial court’s summary denial and remand to provide Appellant sixty days to amend his motion. See Delorenzo v. State, 179 So.3d 550, 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.

SAWAYA, WALLIS, LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 So. 3d 975, 2016 WL 1465654, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nazario-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack