Whitehurst v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Whitehurst v. State

654 So. 2d 607, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4504, 1995 WL 245952

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 28, 1995

DocketNo. 95-01281

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 654 So. 2d 607 (Whitehurst 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

Whitehurst v. State, 654 So. 2d 607, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4504, 1995 WL 245952 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Anthony White-hurst, challenges the denial of his sworn motion to declare his concurrent sentences to be coterminous and to award him additional credit for time spent in jail prior to sentencing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse only that aspect of the order regarding the award of jail credit because the trial court failed to attach portions of the record refuting appellant’s allegations. E.g., Summerall v. State, 637 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). On remand, if the trial court again denies relief, it must attach those parts of the record which refute those allegations. Additionally, because concurrent sentences in different cases are involved, appellant is only entitled to credit against each sentence for the time spent in jail for the charge which resulted in that sentence. Keene v. State, 500 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). If appellant is aggrieved by any subsequent action of the trial court, he must file a timely notice of appeal to obtain further appellate review.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Anthony White-hurst, challenges the denial of his sworn motion to declare his concurrent sentences to be coterminous and to award him additional credit for time spent in jail prior to sentencing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse only that aspect of the order regarding the award of jail credit because the trial court failed to attach portions of the record refuting appellant’s allegations. E.g., Summerall v. State, 637 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). On remand, if the trial court again denies relief, it must attach those parts of the record which refute those allegations. Additionally, because concurrent sentences in different cases are involved, appellant is only entitled to credit against each sentence for the time spent in jail for the charge which resulted in that sentence. Keene v. State, 500 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). If appellant is aggrieved by any subsequent action of the trial court, he must file a timely notice of appeal to obtain further appellate review.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 So. 2d 607, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4504, 1995 WL 245952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehurst-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack