Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Christopher MCDONALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Christopher McDonald appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 motion for additional jail credit. We reverse and remand.
In his postconviction motion, McDonald argued that he did not receive jail credit for the 246 days between his March arrest in Broward County and his November transfer to Brevard County. To support his claim, McDonald attached an affidavit of arrest from Broward County indicating that he was arrested on both a local charge and an outstanding warrant/capias from Brevard County. The trial court summarily denied McDonald's motion, attaching to the order a probable cause affidavit that includes a “Date of Arrest” in 2015, a “Jail Date” in November 2018, and a statement that appears to simply list the charges and notes a failure to appear. This appeal followed.
Governing motions for jail credit, “Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801(e) ․ require[s] the postconviction court to attach to its order records that conclusively refute [the defendant's] claims.” Gibbs v. State, 175 So. 3d 915, 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). As relevant here, “[w]hen a defendant is actually arrested in one county on an arrest warrant issued by another county, the defendant is entitled to credit for jail time served in the county of arrest.” Id. at 917.
In this case, the limited record does not conclusively refute McDonald's facially sufficient claim that he was arrested in Broward County on both Broward and Brevard charges and entitled to further jail credit. See Elkins v. State, 884 So. 2d 499, 499–500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PER CURIAM.
EDWARDS, EISNAUGLE, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 5D20-518
Decided: August 14, 2020
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)