Slone v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Slone v. State

659 So. 2d 1208, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8864, 1995 WL 497204

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 23, 1995

DocketNo. 95-01650

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 659 So. 2d 1208 (Slone 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

Slone v. State, 659 So. 2d 1208, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8864, 1995 WL 497204 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mark F. Slone appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Slone claims he should have received 258 days credit for the time he spent in jail prior to sentencing in case number 90-01203-CFA.

The trial court’s denial of the motion was based solely on the Judgment and Sentence. We are unable, however, to confirm that the amount of jail credit reflected on that form is correct because the trial court failed to attach to its order relevant portions of the record, if any, refuting Slone’s assertions.

Accordingly, we must reverse the trial court’s order. On remand, if the trial court again denies relief, it must attach portions of the record supporting the rejection of Slone’s contentions. See Summerall v. State, 637 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). If such record does not exist, an evidentiary hearing must be conducted.

Reversed and remanded.

FRANK, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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