Rainey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rainey v. State

97 So. 3d 977, 2012 WL 4208916, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15880

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 21, 2012

DocketNo. 5D12-1965

StatusPublished

This text of 97 So. 3d 977 (Rainey 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

Rainey v. State, 97 So. 3d 977, 2012 WL 4208916, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15880 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the lower court’s order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion. We affirm the order except as it pertains to the challenge based upon a misrepresentation by counsel regarding jail credit. Apparently, the lower court thought that Appellant was challenging the jail credit computation. Actually, Appellant was alleging that his trial counsel misinformed him concerning the credit he would receive. Appellant contends that he was told he would receive the full credit from his 2005 case as an offset on his 2010 cases. The State properly concedes error in that the trial judge did not attach records to refute the claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the lower court’s order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion. We affirm the order except as it pertains to the challenge based upon a misrepresentation by counsel regarding jail credit. Apparently, the lower court thought that Appellant was challenging the jail credit computation. Actually, Appellant was alleging that his trial counsel misinformed him concerning the credit he would receive. Appellant contends that he was told he would receive the full credit from his 2005 case as an offset on his 2010 cases. The State properly concedes error in that the trial judge did not attach records to refute the claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 So. 3d 977, 2012 WL 4208916, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rainey-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.