OSMANY HARO v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 14, 2021
Docket21-1197
StatusPublished

This text of OSMANY HARO v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (OSMANY HARO v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA) 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
OSMANY HARO v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 14, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1197 Lower Tribunal No. F16-567B ________________

Osmany Haro, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Altfield, Judge.

Osmany Haro, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON, and BOKOR, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, C.J.

Osmany Haro appeals the trial court order denying his motion for post-

conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Haro claims that his lawyer was ineffective by failing to obtain jail credit for 113 days that Haro

spent in custody in Colorado fighting extradition to Florida. The trial court

denied the motion finding that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801

requires that motions for jail credit be filed within one year from the time that

the judgment and sentence became final. According to the trial court, Haro

pleaded guilty and was sentenced on May 3, 2018, and he filed his motion

for post-conviction relief on December 9, 2019,

In Gisi v. State, 135 So. 3d 493, 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), our sister

court concluded that “[a]lthough the court commentary to rule 3.801 states

that ‘[a]ll jail credit issues must be handled pursuant to this rule,’ the rule

does not apply to claims of jail credit for the time a defendant was

incarcerated outside the state while awaiting sentencing.” This is because

the rule refers to Florida Statute Section 921.161 (2012), and the Florida

Supreme Court held that jail credit awarded pursuant to the statute applies

only to Florida county jail time. See Kronz v. State, 462 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla.

1985) (“[W]e conclude that section 921.161(1) requires the trial judge to give

credit only for time served in Florida county jails pending disposition of

criminal charges.”)

2 Because the motion for post-conviction relief was timely filed pursuant

to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, we reverse and remand for

further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Kronz v. State
462 So. 2d 450 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Gisi v. State
135 So. 3d 493 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
OSMANY HARO v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osmany-haro-v-the-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2021.