Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

127 So. 3d 825

Brown v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 27, 2013

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2013-11-27

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 2019

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Upon receipt of a rule 3.801 motion, the court must follow the procedure outlined in rule 3.850(f).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Smith v. State

Relies on Gore v. State · Barnes v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2013-11-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The postconviction court’s denial of Antonio D. Brown’s motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is affirmed without prejudice for Brown to file a motion under rule 3.801. If Brown chooses to file a rule 3.801 motion, it must comply with the requirements outlined in *826rules 3.801(b), (c), (e), and 3.850(n). Upon receipt of a rule 3.801 motion, the court must follow the procedure outlined in rule 3.850(f). See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.801(e) (effective July 1, 2013).

¶2In its order, the postconviction court did not indicate whether Brown is entitled to credit for time spent in jail prior to his original sentencing and prior to his first violation of probation sentence. We note that a probation violator sentenced to prison is entitled to credit for time served in jail awaiting the original probationary sentence and time spent in custody on violation of probation charges. See Barnes v. State, 74 So.3d 1135, 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); see also Griffin v. State, 828 So.2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

¶3It appears that Brown is scheduled for release on January 26, 2014. Therefore, the postconviction court should expedite any rule 3.801 motion Brown files.

¶4Affirmed without prejudice.

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
/127/so3d/825 · .json · Public domain