David E. Jones v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED DAVID E. JONES, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D14-252 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 1, 2014 3.801 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County, Anthony M. Tatti, Judge. David E. Jones, Century, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris and Ann Phillips, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. ORFINGER, J. We reverse the trial court s order summarily denying David E. Jones s motion for additional jail credit pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. Rule 3.801, which governs jail credit claims, requires the defendant to raise the claim within one year after the sentence becomes final. However, the rule further provides that [f]or sentences imposed prior to July 1, 2013, a motion under this rule may be filed on or before July 1, 2014. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(b). Jones s sentence became final on October 26, 2012, and he filed the rule 3.801 motion on November 4, 2013. Thus, as the State properly concedes, the provision applies, and the trial court erred in denying Jones s motion as untimely. Nevertheless, the motion is deficient as it did not include the requisite oath pursuant to rule 3.801(c). Because the motion is compliant in all other respects, Jones is entitled to an opportunity to amend his motion pursuant to rule 3.801(e). See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(e) (incorporating Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f)); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2) (providing that if motion is facially insufficient, trial court must give defendant 60 days to amend). For these reasons, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to strike the rule 3.801 motion for failure to include the requisite oath, and afford Jones an opportunity to file an amended motion compliant with the rule. REVERSED and REMANDED. EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.