Narrative Opinion Summary
Carl Ridgeway's motion for credit for jail time, filed under Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, was summarily denied due to its facial insufficiency. The court referenced precedent cases, Wiggins v. State and Thomas v. State, to support this determination. The ruling affirms the denial while allowing Ridgeway the opportunity to file a new motion that meets the requirements outlined in Rule 3.850(e). The decision was concurred by Chief Judge Barfield and Judges Ervin and Benton.
Legal Issues Addressed
Facial Insufficiency of Motionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied Carl Ridgeway's motion for credit for jail time because it did not meet the necessary requirements, as it was facially insufficient.
Reasoning: Carl Ridgeway's motion for credit for jail time, filed under Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, was summarily denied due to its facial insufficiency.
Opportunity to Amend Motionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Ridgeway is permitted to file a new motion that complies with the requirements specified in Rule 3.850(e).
Reasoning: The ruling affirms the denial while allowing Ridgeway the opportunity to file a new motion that meets the requirements outlined in Rule 3.850(e).
Precedent Cases Supporting Denialsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court relied on previous decisions in Wiggins v. State and Thomas v. State to justify the denial of Ridgeway's motion.
Reasoning: The court referenced precedent cases, Wiggins v. State and Thomas v. State, to support this determination.