Case Name: Robert CARRIDINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-09-22
Citations: 741 So. 2d 616
Docket Number: No. 99-2739
Parties: Robert CARRIDINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WARNER, C.J., STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 741
Pages: 614-616–617

Head Matter:
Robert CARRIDINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 99-2739.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 22, 1999.
Robert Carridine, South Bay, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert Carridine appeals the denial of his unsworn motion to correct sentence to award additional time served. Contrary to the pleading requirements of State v. Mancino, 7-14 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998) and Toro v. State, 719 So.2d 947, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the motion did not affirmatively allege that the court records demonstrate entitlement to relief or identify where in the record that information could be located. The trial court quite properly denied the motion as legally insufficient.
The denial should have been without prejudice to Carridine to file a new motion that corrects the pleading deficiency. Quartucci v. State, 736 So.2d 1247, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Daily v. State, — So.2d -, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D949, 1999 WL 212859 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr.7, 1999). Accordingly, our affir- manee is without prejudice to file either (1) a rule 3.800 motion that affirmatively demonstrates on the face of the record entitlement to additional jail time credit or, alternatively, (2) a properly sworn rule 3.850 motion challenging the sentence based on the failure to award jail time credit. Fla. R.Crim. Pro. 3.800(a); 3.850 (1999). If Carridine elects the second option, the motion must be filed within the time remaining under that rule.
WARNER, C.J., STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.