Richmond v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Richmond v. State

137 So. 3d 463, 2014 WL 1031424, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3927

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 19, 2014

DocketNo. 4D13-878

StatusPublished

This text of 137 So. 3d 463 (Richmond 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

Richmond v. State, 137 So. 3d 463, 2014 WL 1031424, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3927 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail credit. The motion sought jail credit from the date a hold was placed on him for the violation of probation (VOP) in this case. This claim is without merit. See Gethers v. State, 838 So.2d 504, 508 (Fla.2003). Defendant did not establish that the face of the record showed when the VOP warrant was transmitted or executed. Affirmance is without prejudice for petitioner to file a legally sufficient motion seeking additional jail credit within the time permitted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801(b). See Amador v. State, 112 So.3d 570, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

STEVENSON, GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion seeking additional jail credit. The motion sought jail credit from the date a hold was placed on him for the violation of probation (VOP) in this case. This claim is without merit. See Gethers v. State, 838 So.2d 504, 508 (Fla.2003). Defendant did not establish that the face of the record showed when the VOP warrant was transmitted or executed. Affirmance is without prejudice for petitioner to file a legally sufficient motion seeking additional jail credit within the time permitted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801(b). See Amador v. State, 112 So.3d 570, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

STEVENSON, GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 So. 3d 463, 2014 WL 1031424, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richmond-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack