Case Name: Charles HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-03-09
Citations: 898 So. 2d 172
Docket Number: No. 4D04-3044
Parties: Charles HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 898
Pages: 172–174

Head Matter:
Charles HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D04-3044.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 9, 2005.
Charles Hamilton, Madison, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Hamilton appeals an order of the trial court denying without prejudice his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. Hamilton's motion sought additional jail credit, on a sentence imposed following revocation of probation, for time spent in the Turning Point drug program. Completion of the drug program was a condition of Hamilton's probation, and Hamilton's failure to successfully complete the program was the basis for revocation.
Hamilton's motion conclusorily alleged that Turning Point was equivalent to formal incarceration. Hamilton claimed that Turning' Point had "been determined to be equivalent to a jail-type setting." Hamilton cites no authority, and we have found nothing that supports this assertion. In fact, this court has repeatedly refused to make such a finding. See Smith v. State, 849 So.2d 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Nonetheless, this court has on several occasions remanded to allow a defendant to present evidence that the conditions of such a drug treatment program equate to jail-like confinement. In eases where the defendant has made a conclusory allegation of jail-like conditions, we have directed trial courts to allow amendments to state the case with more specifics.
Rule 3.850(c)(6) requires the movant to give a brief statement of the facts (and other conditions) relied on in support of the motion. A bald claim that Turning Point equals incarceration in jail fails to satisfy the requirement of the rule. A movant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under rule 3.850 where the claim is facially insufficient. See State v. Williams, 797 So.2d 1235, 1237-38 (Fla.2001); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d). The trial court denied Hamilton's motion without prejudice for Hamilton to set forth specific facts which demonstrate how his treatment at Turning Point resulted in a loss of liberty equal to that of formal incarceration.
Because the trial court followed the procedure we have approved in our prior decisions, we affirm.
KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
POLEN, J., concurs specially with opinion.
. Whitehead v. State, 677 So.2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Cregan v. State, 884 So.2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Johnson v. State, 830 So.2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Phillips v. State, 816 So.2d 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Leach v. State, 774 So.2d 899, 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Kamerman v. State, 165 So.2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Rasik v. State, 717 So.2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Williams v. State, 699 So.2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).