Summary
In Smith v. State, 849 So.2d 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), this court recognized that the question of whether a drug farm is the functional equivalent of a jail for purposes of awarding jail credit "raises questions of fact as to the coerciveness and restrictiveness of the program"; therefore, an evidentiary hearing is required.
Summary of this case from Carrier v. StateOpinion
Case No. 4D03-475
Opinion filed July 2, 2003
Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Richard I. Wennet, Judge; L.T. Case No. 99-11697 CFA02.
Marion Smith, Moore Haven, pro se.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Marion Smith ("Appellant") seeks review of an order denying his Rule 3.800(a) Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence wherein he requested 270 days of jail credit for the time he spent in the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Drug Farm program. We affirm.
Appellant seeks our determination that the drug farm is the functional equivalent of a jail for all intents and purposes and asks that he be awarded an additional jail credit. His claim raises questions of fact as to the coerciveness and restrictiveness of the program. Appellant's motion was properly denied because his claim requires an evidentiary hearing and must be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion. See Whitehead v. State, 677 So.2d 40, 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (affirming order revoking probation but remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether or not appellant's service in this drug farm sheriff's facility was sufficiently restrictive to be deemed the equivalent of incarceration).See also Kamerman v. State, 765 So.2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (reversing sworn motion for jail credit for record attachments showing appellant is not entitled to relief or for evidentiary hearing determining whether Turning Point program qualifies appellant for jail time credit); andColumbro v. State, 777 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (affirming order denying Rule 3.800 claim which alleged that time served in a drug treatment program was as coercive and restrictive as jail because claim raised factual questions requiring an evidentiary hearing.)
This court makes no determination as to whether a prisoner is entitled to jail time credit for time served in the drug farm. Williams v. State, 711 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Robinson v. State, 689 So.2d 1147, 1149 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice for Appellant to raise this claim in a timely filed rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief.
FARMER, C.J., GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.