From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Colosimo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 20, 2000
775 So. 2d 352 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

Case No. 2D00-3399

Opinion filed October 20, 2000.

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(i) from the Circuit Court for Lee County; William J. Nelson, Judge.


Kendal Colosimo appeals the summary denial of her "motion to credit time served in court ordered drug rehabilitation program" filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm because Colosimo's motion is facially insufficient under State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla. 1998), and Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). These cases hold that credit time issues are cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion when it is affirmatively alleged how and where the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief. Our affirmance is without prejudice to Colosimo filing a motion under rule 3.800(a) which meets the requirements of Mancino and Baker, or to filing a timely and legally sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Colosimo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 20, 2000
775 So. 2d 352 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

Colosimo v. State

Case Details

Full title:KENDAL COLOSIMO, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Oct 20, 2000

Citations

775 So. 2d 352 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Toomajan v. State

Appellant failed to make the necessary allegation, so his motion was properly denied as facially…

Taylor v. State

We affirm the postconviction court's order because Taylor's motion is facially insufficient. See Gilbert v.…