Summary
stating that a facially sufficient rule 3.800 claim for additional jail time credit for time spent at a drug treatment center must allege that the drug treatment center was the functional equivalent of jail
Summary of this case from Battle v. StateOpinion
No. 2D01-956.
Opinion filed April 18, 2001.
Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P.9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Donald E. Pellecchia, Judge.
Affirmed.
Frederick Hall challenges the trial court's order summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm. In his motion, Hall claimed that he was entitled to jail credit for the time that he spent in a live-in drug treatment center. However, Hall did not allege that the drug treatment center was the functional equivalent of jail and therefore did not present a facially sufficient claim. See Tennell v. State, 26 Fla L. Weekly D616 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 28, 2001). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Hall's ability, if any, to raise this issue in a properly pleaded rule 3.800(a) motion or in a timely, facially sufficient motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Hill v. State, 754 So.2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Altenbernd, A.C.J., and Whatley and Stringer, JJ., Concur.