Norman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Norman v. State

809 So. 2d 893, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4461, 2002 WL 360423

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 2002

DocketNo. 2D02-587

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 809 So. 2d 893 (Norman 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

Norman v. State, 809 So. 2d 893, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4461, 2002 WL 360423 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John L. Norman appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Norman claims that he is entitled to over four months’ credit because, through no fault of his own, the jail officials released him in error between his trial and his sentencing hearing. Norman’s motion does not allege that court records demonstrate his entitlement to ad[894]*894ditional jail credit, and Norman did not attach any court or jail records to his motion.

We affirm the trial court’s order because Norman’s motion is facially insufficient. See Gilbert v. State, 805 So.2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that a rule 3.800(a) motion that does not allege that the court records show the defendant’s entitlement to additional jail credit is facially insufficient). Our affirmance on this basis is without prejudice to Norman’s right to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a) that attaches sufficient court or jail records to support his motion. Such motion will not be considered successive.

Affirmed.

PARKER, NORTHCUTT, and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

John L. Norman appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Norman claims that he is entitled to over four months’ credit because, through no fault of his own, the jail officials released him in error between his trial and his sentencing hearing. Norman’s motion does not allege that court records demonstrate his entitlement to ad[894]*894ditional jail credit, and Norman did not attach any court or jail records to his motion.

We affirm the trial court’s order because Norman’s motion is facially insufficient. See Gilbert v. State, 805 So.2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that a rule 3.800(a) motion that does not allege that the court records show the defendant’s entitlement to additional jail credit is facially insufficient). Our affirmance on this basis is without prejudice to Norman’s right to file a facially sufficient motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a) that attaches sufficient court or jail records to support his motion. Such motion will not be considered successive.

Affirmed.

PARKER, NORTHCUTT, and STRINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

809 So. 2d 893, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4461, 2002 WL 360423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack