Sampson v. State, 92-01182
| Citation | 598 So.2d 211 |
| Decision Date | 06 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-01182,92-01182 |
| Parties | Renaldo L. SAMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 598 So.2d 211, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1178 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Renaldo Sampson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct his sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He challenges the amount of presentence jail time credit he received on his sentence for charges in Pasco County. We reverse.
Appellant alleges that he was incarcerated in Hillsborough County jail on July 27, 1987, when detainer warrants issued for charges pending in Pasco and Pinellas Counties. On February 1, 1988, he was transported to Pasco County jail to await sentencing on the Pasco County charges. On April 20, 1988, he was sentenced to a prison term which was to run concurrent with the other sentences yet to be imposed in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. He claims he was entitled to a total of 266 days' credit for all the time spent in Pasco and Hillsborough County jails. The trial court awarded him credit for the 79 days he spent in Pasco County jail, but did not award him any credit for the time spent in Hillsborough County jail. These allegations, if true, may entitle appellant to relief. See Daniels v. State, 491 So.2d 543 (Fla.1986); Pearson v. State, 538 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
The trial court summarily denied the motion without attachments from the records or files that conclusively refute appellant's allegations. We therefore reverse the order of denial and remand for further proceedings. On remand, should the trial court again deny the motion, it must attach portions of the records or files conclusively showing that appellant is entitled to no relief. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State, 93-345
...2d DCA 1993); Thomas v. State, 611 So.2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Hayes v. State, 610 So.2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Sampson v. State, 598 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Terry v. State, 567 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). In Inclima, the court observed that "[t]his requirement is now specifica......
- Orr v. State
-
Bunch v. State, 93-955
...of Rule 3.800(a) motions has previously been established. See Ransom v. State, 601 So.2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Sampson v. State, 598 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The State suggests we should remand for the court to comply with recently amended Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g......
-
Wiebe v. State, 5D14–544.
...REMANDED.PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.1 At this stage, we accept the allegations in Wiebe's motion as true. See Sampson v. State, 598 So.2d 211, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).2 For instance, the Legislature has recently discussed a program that would allow for the release of elderly inmates. See......