O'Hara v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

O'Hara v. State

575 So. 2d 1376, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2213, 1991 WL 35034

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 1991

DocketNo. 91-00474

StatusPublished

This text of 575 So. 2d 1376 (O'Hara 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

O'Hara v. State, 575 So. 2d 1376, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2213, 1991 WL 35034 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Frederick O’Hara appeals the summary denial of his motions to correct his concur[1377]*1377rent sentences received in two cases. The defendant’s motions sought to have the trial court award him credit against his concurrent sentences for presentence jail time allegedly served from April 19, 1988, through November 3, 1988. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, holding that he received credit for all presentence time. The trial court failed to provide portions of the record sufficient to refute the defendant’s claim or to substantiate the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant had received all the credit time to which he was entitled.

Accordingly, we remand this case for further proceedings. After remand, if the trial court again determines that the defendant’s motions should be denied, it should attach to its order whatever documentation is relied upon in support of its findings. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review.

Reversed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Frederick O’Hara appeals the summary denial of his motions to correct his concur[1377]*1377rent sentences received in two cases. The defendant’s motions sought to have the trial court award him credit against his concurrent sentences for presentence jail time allegedly served from April 19, 1988, through November 3, 1988. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, holding that he received credit for all presentence time. The trial court failed to provide portions of the record sufficient to refute the defendant’s claim or to substantiate the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant had received all the credit time to which he was entitled.

Accordingly, we remand this case for further proceedings. After remand, if the trial court again determines that the defendant’s motions should be denied, it should attach to its order whatever documentation is relied upon in support of its findings. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review.

Reversed.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 So. 2d 1376, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2213, 1991 WL 35034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohara-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.