Villar v. State

110 So. 3d 503, 2013 WL 1222753, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4900
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 27, 2013
DocketNo. 4D12-676
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 110 So. 3d 503 (Villar 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
Villar v. State, 110 So. 3d 503, 2013 WL 1222753, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4900 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the State’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute the following in its place. The trial court denied appellant’s Rule 3.800(a) motion for additional jail credit by attaching a copy of the negotiated plea form which contains a scrawled, handwritten notation that defendant was to receive forty days jail credit. We initially reversed the denial of the motion pursuant to cases holding that a mere notation on a plea form regarding the amount of jail credit is not sufficient to show a clear waiver of entitlement to additional jail credit. See Davis v. State, 968 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

However, in Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1048 (Fla.2011), the Florida Supreme Court disapproved of Davis and other cases which had allowed challenges to the [504]*504jail credit provision of a negotiated plea agreement to be raised in a Rule 3.800(a) motion. Johnson, 60 So.3d at 1048 n. 1.1 The court also rejected the notion that a trial court must attach records to refute a Rule 3.800(a) claim. Id. at 1051; see also Jarrett v. State, 89 So.3d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (rejecting the State’s concession of error).

Pursuant to Johnson, because the appellant in this case agreed to a specific amount of jail credit as part of his negotiated plea agreement, his remedy to challenge an incorrect jail credit calculation was to move to withdraw his plea. He did not request this relief in his motion. Appellant filed his motion within the Rule 3.850 time limit. We therefore affirm without prejudice for appellant to file a Rule 3.850 motion in the trial court within sixty days of the mandate for this opinion.

Affirmed.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

Related

ANTHONY SIMS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
DOMENIC BRIAN SANTEUFEMIO v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Barnette v. State
205 So. 3d 865 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Colon v. State
132 So. 3d 297 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Small v. State
120 So. 3d 64 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Lacy v. State
117 So. 3d 848 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 So. 3d 503, 2013 WL 1222753, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villar-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.