Narrative Opinion Summary
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, reversed the trial court's order that denied Danielle Shaumika Florence's motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellate court found that the trial court did not provide parts of the record that would contradict Florence's assertion that she should receive credit for time served in prison prior to her probation violation. Citing Martone v. State, the court emphasized the necessity for the trial court to either attach relevant portions of the record that conclusively refute the appellant's claim or provide other appropriate relief. The decision was concurred by Judges Gunther, Warner, and Taylor.
Legal Issues Addressed
Credit for Time Served Prior to Probation Violationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that the trial court erred by not providing parts of the record to refute the defendant's claim for credit for time served prior to her probation violation.
Reasoning: The appellate court found that the trial court did not provide parts of the record that would contradict Florence's assertion that she should receive credit for time served in prison prior to her probation violation.
Requirement for Record Attachment in Rule 3.800(a) Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court highlighted the requirement for the trial court to attach relevant record portions when denying motions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) if they refute the appellant's claim.
Reasoning: Citing Martone v. State, the court emphasized the necessity for the trial court to either attach relevant portions of the record that conclusively refute the appellant's claim or provide other appropriate relief.