Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

912 So. 2d 671

Docket No. 3D05-1491.

Lundy v. State

Norris LUNDY, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 12, 2005.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2005-10-12

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 2017

9 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“On appeal from the denial of relief, unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Zelaya v. State

Relies on McDuffie v. Scotty's, Inc. · Barfield v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2005-10-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Norris Lundy, Jr., in proper person.

¶2Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Robin F. Hazel, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

¶3Before RAMIREZ, SUAREZ, and CORTIÑAS, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Norris Lundy appeals an order denying his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 for credit for jail time served. We reverse and remand.

¶6The record before us is unclear concerning whether Lundy is entitled to the jail time credit he seeks. The State claims that Lundy is not entitled to additional credit because he waived such credit as part of the plea agreement. The plea transcript, however, was not attached to the order of denial.

¶7Because the record before us fails to conclusively demonstrate that the appellant is not entitled to any relief, we reverse the denial of Lundy's motion for post conviction relief. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d); Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) ("On appeal from the denial of relief, unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded *672 for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief."). See also Barfield v. State,900 So.2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Cozza v. State,756 So.2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). On remand, the trial court should either attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute Lundy's claim or award him the appropriate credit for time served.

¶8Reversed.

/912/so2d/671 · .json · Public domain