From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alzamora v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec 19, 2014
152 So. 3d 865 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

Summary

finding that because the trial court failed to address a claim, remand was necessary so that it could properly consider that claim

Summary of this case from Allen v. State

Opinion

No. 5D14–1888.

12-19-2014

Alfonso ALZAMORA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Alfonso Alzamora, Milton, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Alfonso Alzamora, Milton, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alfonso Alzamora appeals the order denying the motion he filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Because the trial court failed to address the claim regarding jail credit, we reverse that part of the order and remand this case so the trial court may properly consider that claim. We note that the State concedes this error. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

SAWAYA, PALMER, and BERGER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Alzamora v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec 19, 2014
152 So. 3d 865 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

finding that because the trial court failed to address a claim, remand was necessary so that it could properly consider that claim

Summary of this case from Allen v. State
Case details for

Alzamora v. State

Case Details

Full title:Alfonso ALZAMORA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Date published: Dec 19, 2014

Citations

152 So. 3d 865 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

Citing Cases

Allen v. State

See 560 U.S. at 74–75, 130 S.Ct. 2011 . Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for it to consider the…