Rosado v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosado v. State

907 So. 2d 1265, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12025, 2005 WL 1817773

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 2005

DocketNo. 3D05-1089

StatusPublished

This text of 907 So. 2d 1265 (Rosado 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

Rosado v. State, 907 So. 2d 1265, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12025, 2005 WL 1817773 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant, Jose A. Rosado, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The Appellant claims that the trial court improperly sentenced him for violating his probation without granting him adequate credit for time he served on a split sentence. The State of Florida concedes that the Appellant has raised a facially sufficient claim that the available records do not conclusively refute. However, the State suggests that the Appellant might have waived credit for the time that he previously served.

We remand this case to the trial court with directions to attach documentation that refutes the Appellant’s claim, or to provide the Appellant with credit for the time he served on his split sentence. Brownlee v. State, 899 So.2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Elma v. State, 895 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant, Jose A. Rosado, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The Appellant claims that the trial court improperly sentenced him for violating his probation without granting him adequate credit for time he served on a split sentence. The State of Florida concedes that the Appellant has raised a facially sufficient claim that the available records do not conclusively refute. However, the State suggests that the Appellant might have waived credit for the time that he previously served.

We remand this case to the trial court with directions to attach documentation that refutes the Appellant’s claim, or to provide the Appellant with credit for the time he served on his split sentence. Brownlee v. State, 899 So.2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Elma v. State, 895 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

907 So. 2d 1265, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12025, 2005 WL 1817773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosado-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack