Opinion
No. 1D20-1482
06-18-2021
Roger COPELAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Roger Copeland, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jovona I. Parker, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Roger Copeland, pro se, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jovona I. Parker, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
Appellant appeals the denial of a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801, alleging an entitlement to additional jail credit. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.
Appellant claimed that he is entitled to 382 days of jail credit for time served in the county jail prior to sentencing on two separate criminal cases. Appellant claimed that this was the first time that he was seeking jail credit for these underlying criminal cases.
The trial court denied Appellant's motion on the ground that contrary to Appellant's sworn claims, Appellant had previously filed two nearly identical motions on this matter which it had denied, and his motion was therefore successive. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(d) ("No successive motions for jail credit will be considered."). However, the trial court did not attach these prior motions and orders or any other documents showing that the issue had been previously raised and determined to be meritless. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(e) (incorporating portions of rule 3.850, including subsection (f)); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(5) ("If the denial is based on the records in the case, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the final order.").
The State argues on appeal that the record clearly demonstrates that Appellant has previously filed prior motions for jail credit and that he received a judgment on the merits of those motions. However, the State relies on attachments not included in the record of this appeal, and this Court cannot consider them in the instant matter. Further even if this Court could consider exhibits that are outside the record presented to it, these attachments would not relieve the trial court of its duty to attach these same records to its order to support a finding that a motion is successive.
Therefore, pursuant to this Court's previous holding in Wright v. State , 222 So. 3d 620, 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), we reverse and remand for the trial court to attach the necessary documents proving Appellant's claims are successive.
REVERSED and REMANDED .
Makar, Kelsey, and Winokur, JJ., concur.