LLOYD v. STATE (2024)

Keith H. Lloyd, acting pro se, challenges the postconviction court's May 21, 2024 order that summarily denied Lloyd's May 8, 2024 “Motion to Allow Credit for Time Served.” Lloyd's motion sought credit for (i) the time that Lloyd was incarcerated in a Broward County jail awaiting trial in other criminal cases, (ii) the time that Lloyd was incarcerated in Florida state prison after he was convicted in the Broward County criminal cases, and (iii) the time that the Lloyd was incarcerated in the Miami-Dade County jail prior to sentencing in the instant case.

To the extent that Lloyd's motion sought to correct his sentence to account for jail time, the motion was facially insufficient for failure to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801, the rule governing such motions. Lloyd's motion was not under oath and failed to contain the contents required by the rule. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(c). Rule 3.801(e), though, incorporates the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f). The relevant portion of rule 3.850(f) requires a trial court to dispose of a timely but legally insufficient motion with a nonfinal, nonappealable order that allows a defendant sixty days to file an amended motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2). We, therefore, reverse the trial court's order as to jail time with directions that the trial court enter an order comporting with rule 3.850(f)(2). See Lopez v. State, 273 So. 3d 1131, 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

To the extent that Lloyd's motion sought to correct his sentence to account for prison time, the State is correct that prison time is governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Curtis v. State, 197 So. 3d 135, 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“Rule 3.801 provides for the correction of a sentence that fails to award a defendant credit for time the defendant spent in jail prior to sentencing; it does not provide for the correction of prison credit. Instead, a claim for credit for prison time is properly raised in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).”). Lloyd's motion was facially insufficient under rule 3.800(a) for failure to affirmatively allege that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief. We, therefore, affirm the postconviction court's order as to prison time without prejudice to Lopez filing a timely and facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion. See Clark v. State, 932 So. 2d 364, 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

SCALES, J.