David Neverson v. State of Florida

PER CURIAM. We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s rule 3.801 motion for additional jail credit but for reasons other than those relied on by the trial court. In Neverson v. State, 141 So.3d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), this Court affirmed the denial of a prior rule 3.800 motion without prejudice for appellant to file a timely and legally sufficient rule 3.801 motion. Id. at 626. Appellant filed a timely motion in the trial court. The court summarily denied the motion adopting the State’s response, which mistakenly asserted that the motion was successive. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(d) (prohibiting successive rule 3.801 motions). The motion was not impermissi-bly successive. We agree with the State’s response in this appeal that appellant’s claim for time served on community control lacks merit. Young v. State, 697 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla.1997). We conclude that appellant’s other claims for additional jail credit are legally insufficient as he failed to provide under oath the information required by the rule. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(c). Affirmed. TAYLOR, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.