Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

825 So. 2d 507

Docket No. 1D02-1041.

Swanson v. State

William SWANSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 6, 2002.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2002-09-06

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2017

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Wright filed a facially sufficient claim for jail credit under rule 3.800 by providing the dates for which she is seeking credit, the date of her sentence, and alleging that the jail records in the county where she was sentenced would show that she is entitled to the credit sought.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Petscher v. State

Relies on 714 So. 2d 429 - State v. Mancino · American Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Jackson · 817 So. 2d 1048 - Harvester v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-09-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Appellant, pro se.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Giselle Lylen Rivera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The appellant challenges the trial court's order summarily denying his rule 3.800 motion for jail credit. The appellant has made a facially sufficient claim for jail credit under rule 3.800 by providing the dates for which he is seeking credit, the date of his sentence, and alleging that the jail certificate would show that he is entitled to credit. See Thomas v. State,634 So.2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); State v. Mancino,714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998). The trial court failed to reference or attach any records refuting the appellant's allegations. Because the trial court did not rely upon any court documents in summarily denying the appellant's motion, we decline in this instance to apply Harvester v. State,817 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), in which the Second District Court of Appeal determined that it will either relinquish jurisdiction for the preparation of an amended order, or order the trial court to supplement the record, before deciding whether to affirm or reverse the trial court's order of summary denial. We accordingly reverse and remand for the trial court to support its denial with record attachments or to grant the relief sought.

¶5REVERSED and REMANDED.

¶6MINER, WOLF and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

/825/so2d/507 · .json · Public domain