Tranquille v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tranquille v. State

747 So. 2d 426, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16615, 1999 WL 1128949

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 1999

DocketNo. 99-03321

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 747 So. 2d 426 (Tranquille 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

Tranquille v. State, 747 So. 2d 426, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16615, 1999 WL 1128949 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jean Tranquille appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm but write to address one issue raised by Tranquille — that he was not awarded all of the jail time credit to which he is entitled. Although such a claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800 proceeding, Tranquille’s motion is facially insufficient because it does not affirmatively allege that the court records show an entitlement to relief on their face. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998). Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to Tranquille raising this issue in a facially sufficient motion pursuant to rule 3.800 if he is able to do so. See, [427]*427e.g., Garcia v. State, 732 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

BLUE, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jean Tranquille appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm but write to address one issue raised by Tranquille — that he was not awarded all of the jail time credit to which he is entitled. Although such a claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800 proceeding, Tranquille’s motion is facially insufficient because it does not affirmatively allege that the court records show an entitlement to relief on their face. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998). Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to Tranquille raising this issue in a facially sufficient motion pursuant to rule 3.800 if he is able to do so. See, [427]*427e.g., Garcia v. State, 732 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

BLUE, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

747 So. 2d 426, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16615, 1999 WL 1128949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tranquille-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack