Orta v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Orta v. State

41 So. 3d 1092, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11769, 2010 WL 3187049

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 2010

Docket5D10-2063

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 So. 3d 1092 (Orta 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

Orta v. State, 41 So. 3d 1092, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11769, 2010 WL 3187049 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

JACOBUS, J.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion seeking additional jail credit because the motion was facially insufficient. Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to Appellant’s right to re-file his motion in a manner that specifies the dates for which Appellant claims an entitlement to additional jail credit. See Santiago v. State, 22 So.3d 789, 789-90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[T]he motion must affirmatively allege that the trial court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief. A mere conclusory allegation that the answer lies in the record is insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of the rule.”); Williams v. State, 4 So.3d 728, 729 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“Although a jail credit claim may be raised by use of a 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence, the movant must demonstrate that the record shows an entitlement to additional jail credit, as well as a sentence that fails to grant such credit.”).

AFFIRMED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

JACOBUS, J.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion seeking additional jail credit because the motion was facially insufficient. Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to Appellant’s right to re-file his motion in a manner that specifies the dates for which Appellant claims an entitlement to additional jail credit. See Santiago v. State, 22 So.3d 789, 789-90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[T]he motion must affirmatively allege that the trial court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief. A mere conclusory allegation that the answer lies in the record is insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of the rule.”); Williams v. State, 4 So.3d 728, 729 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“Although a jail credit claim may be raised by use of a 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence, the movant must demonstrate that the record shows an entitlement to additional jail credit, as well as a sentence that fails to grant such credit.”).

AFFIRMED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 So. 3d 1092, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11769, 2010 WL 3187049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orta-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack