Case Name: Anthony HOSKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-12-19
Citations: 259 So. 3d 892
Docket Number: No. 4D18-2413
Parties: Anthony HOSKINS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 259
Pages: 892–892

Head Matter:
Anthony HOSKINS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D18-2413
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
[December 19, 2018]
Anthony Hoskins, Bonifay, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
After a fifth violation of probation, Appellant Anthony Hoskins was sentenced to 30 months in prison with 52 days of jail credit. Hoskins filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 motion seeking additional jail credit for time spent in jail following previous violations of probation. The trial court summarily denied the 3.801 motion. Its order failed to attach any documents refuting Hoskins' claim. As the State concedes on appeal, this was reversible error, requiring remand.
"Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801(e), which incorporates Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure rule 3.850(f), the circuit court was required to attach records which conclusively refuted the defendant's motion seeking additional jail credit." Williams v. State , 141 So.3d 686, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(5) ("If the denial is based on the records in the case, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the final order.").
As noted above, the State concedes that the trial court's order does not comply with the Rule. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing or for the attachment of records conclusively refuting Hoskins' claim for additional jail credit.
Reversed and remanded .
Gerber, C.J., Forst and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Hoskins' motion claims that he had previously been in jail multiple times for violations of probation, but had only been awarded jail credit for the last jail stay.