Olliviere v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Olliviere v. State

790 So. 2d 1186, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10284, 2001 WL 829949

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 25, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-1301

StatusPublished

This text of 790 So. 2d 1186 (Olliviere 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

Olliviere v. State, 790 So. 2d 1186, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10284, 2001 WL 829949 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Laklemus Olliviere appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Olliviere stated that he was entitled to 236 days of jail credit in case numbers 98-21101 and 98-21226, but when he was sentenced he was only awarded 206 days. The form motion Olliviere filed did not state a facially sufficient claim because it did not allege that the claim could be determined without an evidentiary hearing and it did not state “how his claim is established in the records available to the trial court.” Rolon v. State, 787 So.2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to Olliviere’s right to file a facially sufficient claim under rule 3.800(a), or a timely and legally sufficient motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Affirmed.

WHATLEY, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Laklemus Olliviere appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Olliviere stated that he was entitled to 236 days of jail credit in case numbers 98-21101 and 98-21226, but when he was sentenced he was only awarded 206 days. The form motion Olliviere filed did not state a facially sufficient claim because it did not allege that the claim could be determined without an evidentiary hearing and it did not state “how his claim is established in the records available to the trial court.” Rolon v. State, 787 So.2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to Olliviere’s right to file a facially sufficient claim under rule 3.800(a), or a timely and legally sufficient motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Affirmed.

WHATLEY, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

790 So. 2d 1186, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10284, 2001 WL 829949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olliviere-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack