Nitti v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nitti v. State

645 So. 2d 1019, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9617, 1994 WL 543103

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 1994

DocketNo. 94-01315

StatusPublished

This text of 645 So. 2d 1019 (Nitti 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

Nitti v. State, 645 So. 2d 1019, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9617, 1994 WL 543103 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James A. Nitti appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Nitti claims he should receive forty-five days credit for the time he spent in jail prior to sentencing in circuit court case numbers 91-19226 and 92-19109.

The trial court’s denial was based on the fact that Nitti was not incarcerated on both charges at the same time. However, we are unable to confirm that finding because the trial court failed to attach to its order those portions of the record refuting appellant’s allegation. Accordingly, we must 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. See Summerall v. State, 637 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Reversed and remanded.

FRANK, C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

James A. Nitti appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Nitti claims he should receive forty-five days credit for the time he spent in jail prior to sentencing in circuit court case numbers 91-19226 and 92-19109.

The trial court’s denial was based on the fact that Nitti was not incarcerated on both charges at the same time. However, we are unable to confirm that finding because the trial court failed to attach to its order those portions of the record refuting appellant’s allegation. Accordingly, we must 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. See Summerall v. State, 637 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Reversed and remanded.

FRANK, C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

645 So. 2d 1019, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9617, 1994 WL 543103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nitti-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack