Case Name: Lawrence MONTAGUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-07-28
Citations: 933 So. 2d 1282
Docket Number: No. 2D06-971
Parties: Lawrence MONTAGUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DAVIS and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 933
Pages: 1282–1283

Head Matter:
Lawrence MONTAGUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 2D06-971.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
July 28, 2006.

Opinion:
SALCINES, Judge.
Lawrence Montague appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his motion for additional jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Montague claims he is entitled to additional jail credit in Hillsborough County case number 89-02618 for the time he spent in Hernando County jail from November 29, 1994, to January 5, 1995, and for the time he spent in Hillsborough County jail from January 6, 1995, to February 20, 1995.
Because Montague failed to provide any record evidence that either a warrant or a detainer was lodged against him from Hillsborough County while he was in jail in Hernando County, we affirm the postcon-viction court's decision as to this claim, without prejudice to Montague's right to refile his motion showing entitlement to additional jail time credit pursuant to Gethers v. State, 838 So.2d 504 (Fla.2003). See Smith v. State, 884 So.2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
However, the postconviction court failed to address, and the attachments to the postconviction court's order do not conclusively refute, Montague's claim that he did not receive credit for the time he spent in Hillsborough County jail from January 6, 1995, to February 20, 1995. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postcon-viction court to reconsider Montague's claim. On remand, if the postconviction court summarily denies the claim, it must set forth its reasoning and attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Montague's allegation. See Carroll v. State, 914 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); O'Neill v. State, 861 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
DAVIS and WALLACE, JJ" Concur.