From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ladson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 10, 2005
907 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Opinion

No. 2D05-2044.

August 10, 2005.

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Highlands County; Olin W. Shinholser, Judge.


Mitchell Ladson appeals the circuit court's denial of his pro se motion for additional jail credit. We reverse the denial of the motion and remand for the circuit court to strike the motion as unauthorized since Ladson's direct appeal of his judgment and sentence is still pending in this court.

A motion for additional jail credit is normally a motion authorized by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Hines v. State, 842 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However, rule 3.800(a) prohibits the filing of such a motion during the pendency of a direct appeal. See Day v. State, 770 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that effective January 13, 2000, a party may not file a rule 3.800(a) motion during the pendency of a direct appeal).

Because Ladson filed his motion during the pendency of the direct appeal of his judgment and sentence, Ladson's motion was unauthorized. Therefore, the order of the circuit court denying the motion must be reversed and, on remand, the motion should be stricken as unauthorized. However, once this court decides Ladson's direct appeal and issues a mandate, if Ladson seeks further relief, he may file a rule 3.800(a) motion raising the same issue.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND, CASANUEVA, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Ladson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 10, 2005
907 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
Case details for

Ladson v. State

Case Details

Full title:Mitchell LADSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Aug 10, 2005

Citations

907 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Citing Cases

Wallace v. State

We reverse the denial of the motion and remand for the postconviction court to strike the motion as…

Scott v. State

Thus, the postconviction court improperly denied the motion rather than striking it as unauthorized. See…