Filed: Feb. 11, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 11, 2015
Summary: PER CURIAM . Edward Holton appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion and his amended rule 3.850 motion, and granting his motion to clarify sentence. In recommending how to clarify Holton's sentence, the State's response filed below set forth the specific time periods for which it determined Holton was entitled to jail credit for time served. Within his reply to that response, filed in April 2014, Holton raised a new claim of entitlement to credit for an additional period. In th
Summary: PER CURIAM . Edward Holton appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion and his amended rule 3.850 motion, and granting his motion to clarify sentence. In recommending how to clarify Holton's sentence, the State's response filed below set forth the specific time periods for which it determined Holton was entitled to jail credit for time served. Within his reply to that response, filed in April 2014, Holton raised a new claim of entitlement to credit for an additional period. In the..
More
PER CURIAM.
Edward Holton appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion and his amended rule 3.850 motion, and granting his motion to clarify sentence. In recommending how to clarify Holton's sentence, the State's response filed below set forth the specific time periods for which it determined Holton was entitled to jail credit for time served. Within his reply to that response, filed in April 2014, Holton raised a new claim of entitlement to credit for an additional period. In the order on appeal, the trial court specifically addressed that claim and summarily denied it on the merits. We affirm without discussion as to all grounds other than the jail credit claim.
The jail credit claim would have been timely if filed as a rule 3.801 motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(b) ("For sentences imposed prior to July 1, 2013, a motion under this rule may be filed on or before July 1, 2014."). The trial court purportedly attached to the order of denial record documents refuting the claim. However, no such documents were actually attached. In response to this Court's order to show cause, the State agrees the cause should be remanded for the trial court to attach those records.
We reverse only the denial of the jail credit claim raised in Holton's reply, and remand for further proceedings.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
CIKLIN, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.
