From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mendez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 30, 2010
42 So. 3d 848 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Opinion

No. 5D10-1417.

August 6, 2010. Rehearing Denied August 30, 2010.

3.800(a) Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Robert J. Egan, Judge.

Antonio Mendez, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.


We affirm the denial of the Appellant's motion to correct illegal sentence, which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We do so without prejudice to the Appellant to file a legally sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion that affirmatively demonstrates from the face of the record that he is entitled to the additional jail credit he seeks. In this case, that means he must allege where in the record information can be found that demonstrates he served time in the Lake County Jail solely because of an Orange County detainer. See Ponce v. State, 24 So.3d 724 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Harnage v. State, 946 So.2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Alternatively, if the Appellant believes an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve his claim, he may file a properly sworn rule 3.850 motion. Because the time for filing a rule 3.850 motion expired while this appeal was pending, any rule 3.850 motion must be filed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the mandate in this case. See Ponce, 24 So.3d at 725.

AFFIRMED without prejudice.

SAWAYA, LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mendez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 30, 2010
42 So. 3d 848 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)
Case details for

Mendez v. State

Case Details

Full title:Antonio MENDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Aug 30, 2010

Citations

42 So. 3d 848 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Gisi v. State

The court further found that because the Bradford County jail credit claim involved disputed issues of fact,…