Case Name: Simon LANGDON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-10-04
Citations: 947 So. 2d 460
Docket Number: No. 3D05-2791
Parties: Simon LANGDON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before FLETCHER and SHEPHERD, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 947
Pages: 460–464

Head Matter:
Simon LANGDON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D05-2791.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 4, 2006.
Opinion Granting Clarification Jan. 17, 2007.
Simon F. Langdon, in proper person.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Michele Samaroo, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FLETCHER and SHEPHERD, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On appeal from a summary denial, this court must reverse unless the postconviction record, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
On June 11, 2004, appellant pled guilty to violation of probation and was sentenced to ten years in state prison with credit for time served from March 22, 2004 until appellant's plea. Appellant filed this Rule 3.800(a) motion alleging entitlement to credit for eighteen months served on a prior violation of probation plea. The trial court denied relief without attaching records. While the State's appendix appears to refute appellant's factual allegations, we nevertheless must reverse and remand for attachment of records conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief or an evidentiary hearing. See Fut-rell v. State, 932 So.2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
FLETCHER and SHEPHERD, JJ., concur.
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge, dissents.
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
SHEPHERD, J.
We grant the State's timely motion for clarification pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a). Our original opinion reversed the trial court's summary denial of defendant's motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) because the trial court did not attach to its order portions of the transcript conclusively demon strating that defendant waived entitlement to credit for time served in prison. See Langdon v. State, 947 So.2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 4, 2006); Friss v. State, 881 So.2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)("It is not the defendant's burden to attach portions of the record showing entitlement to relief, but it is the trial court's responsibility to attach portions conclusively refuting the claim."); see also Futrell v. State, 932 So.2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); McClain v. State, 629 So.2d 320, 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)("A trial court's failure to attach portions of the record refuting the allegations of a rule 3.850 motion cannot be remedied on appeal by the state's attempt to furnish material refuting the prisoner's claims."); Lundy v. State, 912 So.2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
However, Rule 3.800(a) "does not contemplate an evidentiary hearing." Re-naud v. State, 926 So.2d 1241, 1242 (Fla. 2006). We therefore remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again summarily denies the motion, it shall attach portions of the record showing conclusively that appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). -
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
FLETCHER, J., concurs.
. Although the appellant here raises a Rule 3.800(a) rather than a Rule 3.850 claim, we believe the procedural requirements are essentially the same here. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141 (b)(2)(A)-(D).
. We note that nothing in the rules of criminal or appellate procedure precludes the trial court from attaching or incorporating a response from the State that provides the necessary documents. See Futrell, 932 So.2d at 643. Cf. McClain, 629 So.2d at 321.
. We pause to acknowledge the ear appeal of the dissent. If persuasiveness were the test, we would be tempted to "plead guilty" and succumb. Unfortunately, carefully crafted criminal and appellate rules adopted by the Florida Supreme Court constrain we lesser mortals who serve on this court. While not "too old to picket" in our humble opinion, see infra p. 464, we suggest only to our esteemed senior colleague in the dissent that the proper place to protest in this case is to a court to our north.