NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FIL ED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JAMES DAVID DeANGELO, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-2466 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. )

________________________ ___________ ) Opinion filed July 16, 2014. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Charles B. Curry, Judge. James David DeAngelo, pro se.

PER CURIAM. James David DeAngelo appeals the postconviction court order sum marily denying his motion filed under Flo rida Rule of Criminal Procedu re 3.801. We affirm the order as it relates to DeAngelo's claim for out-of-state jail c redit. However, we reverse the denial of his claim for Po lk County jail credit and remand for further proceedings. Police arrested DeAngelo followi ng a traffic stop in Maryland a fter they discovered a fugitive warrant f rom Polk County for violation of probation. On January 3, 2013, after authorities transported him back to Polk County, th e court sentenced- 2 - DeAngelo to thirty months' im prisonment. DeAngelo timely filed this rule 3.801 motion, seeking jail credit for time he spent in Montgomery County, Mar yland, while he was being held solely on a Polk Cou nty warrant and credit for time served in Polk County jail. DeAngelo provided documen ts from the State of Maryland s howing that he was arrested in Maryland on August 24 , 2012, and was physically tra nsported on December 5, 2012; he arrived at the Polk County jail on December 7, 2012 , where he remained until sentencing. The postconviction court found the motion fa cially sufficient and ordered the State to show cause why relief should not be grante d. The State argued that the motion should be denied because DeAngelo was seeking o ut-of-state jail credit and thus rule 3.850, not rule 3. 801, is the proper vehicle. Th e postconviction court agreed with the State and summa rily denied the motion. Because the award of out-of-st ate jail credit is within the sen tencing court's discretion, the proper remedy to seek such credit is th rough a rule 3.850 motion. See Gisi v. State, 135 So. 3d 493 , 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citi ng Garnett v. State, 957 So. 2d 32, 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (en banc)). Therefore, we aff irm the denial of DeAngelo's claim for out-of-sta te jail credit without prejudice to any right he may have to file a facially sufficient rul e 3.850 motion. See Wombaugh v. State, 25 So. 3d 707, 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Brooks v. S tate, 91 So. 3d 212, 213 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2012). However, because the postconvic tion court erred in failing to c onsider DeAngelo's facially sufficient claim that he did not receive credit for ti me served in Polk County jail, we reverse and remand for furthe r proceedings as to that claim. See Gore v. State, 100 So. 3d 177, 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 201 2) (reversing and remanding bec ause the postconviction court failed to address a claim and the attachme nts did not conclusively refute the defendant's allegations).- 3 - As it appears that DeAngelo is cur rently scheduled for release on September 3, 2014, we encourage the postconviction court to exp edite its proceeding on remand. Affirmed in part, revers ed in part, and remanded.

SILBERMAN, LaROSE, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.