Rodriguez v. State

201 So. 3d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) · Third District Court of Appeal of Florida · August 13, 2015 · No. 3D14-2650

Summary

The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed an order denying Ramon Rodriguez additional jail credit. Based on the State’s confession of error, the court remanded for the trial court to properly address Rodriguez’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 motion, including conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching records conclusively showing he was not entitled to relief. The court also directed the trial court to respond appropriately to Rodriguez’s Rule 3.800 challenge to his sentence and appointed the public defender for remand proceedings.

Court
Third District Court of Appeal of Florida
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Wells; Rothenberg; Scales
Jurisdiction
Florida
Decision date
August 13, 2015
Docket number
3D14-2650
Procedural posture
Ramon Rodriguez appealed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from an order denying his motion for additional credit time served.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion
Parties
Ramon Rodriguez v. The State of Florida
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

post-conviction reliefsentence modificationsentencingcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedurepost-conviction reliefsentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court properly denied Rodriguez’s Rule 3.801 motion for additional jail-time credit without conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching record portions conclusively showing that he was not entitled to relief.
  2. What action the trial court was required to take on remand regarding Rodriguez’s Rule 3.800 motion challenging the legality of his sentence.

Holdings

  1. The trial court erred in summarily denying Rodriguez’s Rule 3.801 motion without either conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of jail credit due or attaching portions of the record conclusively demonstrating that Rodriguez was not entitled to relief.
  2. The trial court was required to respond appropriately to Rodriguez’s Rule 3.800 motion challenging the legality of his 37.88-month prison sentence.

Key quotations

Pursuant to Rule 3.801(e), the trial court should then either conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of jail credit for which Rodriguez is entitled or, in the alternative, attach portions of the record that conclusively demonstrate that Rodriguez is not entitled to relief. (at 3)
Reversed and remanded with instructions. (at 3)

Factual background

Rodriguez’s claims arose from a succession of arrests, guilty pleas, and probation violations between 2009 and 2013. The trial court imposed a 37.88-month prison sentence on August 22, 2013, and its records reflected 350 days of jail credit. Rodriguez later sought additional credit, asserting entitlement to substantially more days, but the trial court denied his request without clearly specifying whether it had adjudicated one or both of his motions.

Procedural history

Rodriguez filed a Rule 3.800 motion challenging the legality of his 37.88-month prison sentence and a Rule 3.801 motion seeking additional jail-time credit. The Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County summarily denied the request for additional credit in an order dated July 29, 2014. The State confessed error on appeal, and the Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded.

Remand instructions

The trial court must treat Rodriguez’s Rule 3.801 motion as timely filed and either conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of jail credit to which he is entitled or attach record portions conclusively demonstrating that he is not entitled to relief. The trial court must also respond appropriately to Rodriguez’s Rule 3.800 motion challenging the legality of his 37.88-month sentence, expedite the matter, and permit representation by the public defender.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Florida Third District Court Of Appeal