Currelly v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
EDDIE CHARLES CURRELLY,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 2D01-4719
Opinion filed December 19, 2001.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.
9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for
Hillsborough County; Jack Espinosa, Jr.,
Judge.
BLUE, Chief Judge.
Eddie Charles Currelly timely appeals the summary denial of his "motion for
clarification." Although not styled as a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.850, the motion met the procedural requirements of this rule and presented
issues that were appropriately presented in a rule 3.850 motion. The motion alleged three
violations of the plea agreement. The trial court’s order only addressed the claim seeking
credit for additional jail time. The portions of the record attached to the order fail to
conclusively show that Mr. Currelly was not entitled to relief on that particular claim. The
trial court did not address the remaining claims.
We conclude that the trial court should have treated this motion as a
postconviction relief motion alleging violations of the plea agreement and addressed all
three grounds presented by Mr. Currelly. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the
motion and remand for further proceedings consistent with rule 3.850.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER and GREEN, 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.
