Fountain v. State, 95-1219

Decision Date13 September 1995
Docket NumberNo. 95-1219,95-1219
Citation660 So.2d 376
Parties20 Fla. L. Weekly D2109 James E. FOUNTAIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James Fountain, Immokalee, pro se appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Don M. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

KLEIN, Judge.

We withdraw our opinion filed July 19, 1995 and substitute the following opinion in its place.

Appellant filed a rule 3.800 motion alleging that because he was already in custody when he was charged in this case, he is entitled to jail credit from the date he was served with the capias on the new charges. Rule 3.800 is a proper vehicle for seeking jail credit, Lee v. State, 566 So.2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Thomas v. State, 611 So.2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and under Carver v. State, 653 So.2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), appellant is entitled to credit from the date he was served with the capias on the new charges.

The trial court summarily denied appellant's motion, however, the portions of the record which the court attached do not conclusively refute appellant's claim. Specifically, the copy of the capias does not show the date on which it was served. In our withdrawn opinion, we remanded for further proceedings including the possibility of an evidentiary hearing; however, the unsettled question of whether there can be an evidentiary hearing on a rule 3.800 motion has since been answered in the negative in State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla.1995).

Callaway adopted, for the most part, Judge Altenbernd's explanation of the difference between rule 3.800 and 3.850 in Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 76-77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991):

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to succinctly state the precise distinctions between: 1) a sentencing error that may be corrected on direct appeal, 2) a sentence imposed "in violation of" law that may be corrected under rule 3.850, and 3) an "illegal sentence" that must be corrected at any time under rule 3.800(a). Even though lawyers and judges sometimes loosely refer to all three categories as "illegal" sentences, it is clear that the three categories are not identical. Some errors that can be addressed on direct appeal cannot be raised in postconviction motions. Some errors that can be corrected under rule 3.850 cannot be corrected under rule 3.800(a). Rule 3.800(a) is reserved for the narrow category of cases in which the sentence can be described as truly "illegal" as a matter of law.

* * * * * *

Rule 3.800(a) is intended to provide relief for a narrow category of cases in which the sentence imposes a penalty that is simply not authorized by law. It is concerned primarily with whether the terms and conditions of the punishment for a particular offense are permissible as a matter of law. It is not a vehicle designed to re-examine whether the procedure employed to impose the punishment comported with statutory law and due process. Unlike a motion pursuant to rule 3.850, the motion can be filed without an oath because, it is designed to test issues that should not involve significant questions of fact or require a lengthy evidentiary hearing. (Footnote omitted) (Emphasis added).

Callaway, however, went one step further than Judge, and held that rule 3.800 is limited to sentencing issues which can be resolved without an evidentiary hearing:

In Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) review denied, 613 So.2d 5 (Fla.1992), the court recognized that there are three different types of sentencing errors: (1) an "erroneous sentence," which is correctable on direct appeal; (2) an "unlawful sentence," which is correctable only after an evidentiary hearing under rule 3.850; and (3) an "illegal sentence" in which the error must be corrected...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Vanderblomen v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 24 Marzo 1998
    ...necessarily limited such claims only to those that could be determined without an evidentiary hearing. See Fountain v. State, 660 So.2d 376, 377-78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Sullo v. State, 663 So.2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Saunders v. State, 661 So.2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). That cour......
  • Jefferson v. State, 95-4588
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 27 Junio 1996
    ...with a 3.800(a) motion, the Callaway court appeared to fully adopt the Judge definition of "illegal sentence." See Fountain v. State, 660 So.2d 376 (Fla.4th DCA 1995). Judge explained that an "illegal sentence" correctable under rule 3.800(a) exists where a penalty has been imposed "that is......
  • Moreland v. State, 97-1213
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 29 Octubre 1997
    ...trial court is directed to review the record and determine whether Appellant is entitled to the relief requested. See Fountain v. State, 660 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (providing that relief under rule 3.800(a) is limited to issues that can be resolved as matter of law without evidentiar......
  • Sullivan v. State, 96-1322
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 5 Junio 1996
    ...to consider Rule 3.800 motions based upon improper jail credits. See Ford v. State, 667 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Fountain v. State, 660 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Nichols v. State, 668 So.2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We therefore certify the following question to the Florida Supreme......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT