05-2834 BROWN V. STATE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 05-2834 BROWN V. STATE

Case Date: 12/20/2006

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2006

TRAVIS BROWN, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

** ** ** ** ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 02-13624 CASE NO. 3D05-2834

Opinion filed December 20, 2006. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge J. Perez, Judge. Travis Brown, in proper person. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Hazel, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. and Robin F.

Before COPE, C.J., and SHEPHERD and ROTHENBERG, JJ. ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

We grant Appellant Travis Brown's motion to enforce our mandate and order the trial court to hold further proceedings consistent with our prior opinion. On August 30, 2005, Appellant Brown filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), alleging

entitlement to 540 days of jail credit. trial court summarily denied the

On September 16, the While the trial

motion.

court's original order cited to a sentencing scoresheet, 1 the trial court failed to cite or attach portions of the plea

colloquy conclusively establishing that Brown waived entitlement to the alleged jail credit. "for further proceedings We therefore reversed and remanded or for the attachment of record

excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief." 2006). Based upon our mandate, the trial court had three options: (1) issue a new order granting relief to Brown, (2) enter a new order denying relief and attaching the necessary record evidence conclusively demonstrating that Brown is not entitled to credit, or (3) conduct a hearing on the merits of Brown's motion and issue a new order reflecting the trial court's findings. trial court has not proceeded on any of these options. The Brown Brown v. State, 925 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA

1

The scoresheet was not, in fact, attached to the trial court's order. 2

therefore has filed this motion to enforce the mandate and we ordered the State to show cause why we should not grant Brown's motion to enforce the mandate. recognize 3.800(a) colloquy. that motion the was trial The State, apparently failing to original order on Brown's plea

court's

reversed,

merely

forwarded

Brown's

This is insufficient because the trial court has not We therefore grant

revisited the 3.800 motion post-reversal.

Brown's motion to enforce our mandate with directions to conduct further proceedings in accordance with this order.

3

Download 05-2834 BROWN V. STATE.pdf