Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

864 So. 2d 1282

Docket No. 1D03-4406.

Koester v. State

Gary KOESTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 6, 2004.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2004-02-06

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2006

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In the instant case, the appellant made a facially sufficient claim of foreign jail credit by providing the dates for which he is seeking credit, providing the date of his sentence, alleging where in the record it can be shown that he is entitled to relief and alleging that he was held solely on Florida charges.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Petscher v. State

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

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-02-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Appellant, pro se.

¶2*1283 Charlie Crist, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion seeking additional jail credit, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the appellate record does not conclusively refute the appellant's claim, we reverse.

¶5The appellant made a facially sufficient claim for jail credit pursuant to rule 3.800(a) by providing the dates for which he is seeking credit and the date of his sentence, and alleging the specific record portions that 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). According to the appellant, he is entitled to 104 days of jail credit but he was only awarded 30. When a trial court denies such a claim made pursuant to rule 3.800(a), it must either attach to the order those portions of the record which refute the claim or, if the record is silent regarding the amount of jail credit, so state. Thomas,634 So.2d at 177-78. The trial court did neither. Accordingly, we reverse and remand. Should the trial court again determine that the claim lacks merit, it shall ensure that its order denying relief complies with this opinion.

¶6REVERSED and REMANDED.

¶7ALLEN, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur.

/864/so2d/1282 · .json · Public domain