Sparks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sparks v. State

800 So. 2d 726, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17066, 2001 WL 1539014

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-3830

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 800 So. 2d 726 (Sparks 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

Sparks v. State, 800 So. 2d 726, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17066, 2001 WL 1539014 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Charles Sparks challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his mo[727]*727tion, Sparks sought credit against his prison sentence for time spent in a live-in drug treatment center. Sparks did not allege that the drug treatment center was the functional equivalent of jail, and his motion is facially insufficient. See Hall v. State, 784 So.2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to Sparks’ ability, if any, to raise this issue in a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion or in a timely, facially sufficient motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Id.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

Charles Sparks challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his mo[727]*727tion, Sparks sought credit against his prison sentence for time spent in a live-in drug treatment center. Sparks did not allege that the drug treatment center was the functional equivalent of jail, and his motion is facially insufficient. See Hall v. State, 784 So.2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to Sparks’ ability, if any, to raise this issue in a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion or in a timely, facially sufficient motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Id.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

800 So. 2d 726, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17066, 2001 WL 1539014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparks-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack