and (2) Jackson’s second claim — that neither counsel nor the trial court advised him that he would subject himself to conditional release probation— was facially insufficient because the record showed no hearing or entry or acceptance of a plea on the alleged date. Mr. Jackson filed an amended rule 3.850 motion alleging that his counsel misadvised him and failed to advise the court of the correct amount of jail credit due and that, had counsel done so, the outcome of the sentencing hearing would have been different. The postconviction court denied the amended motion with prejudice because it remained facially insufficient in view of the court’s prior 3.800(a) ruling that Mr. Jackson was not entitled to additional jail credit. See Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Jackson argues that the postconviction
holding applicants general state court claim was insufficient to exhaust his later more specific federal habeas claim holding that the plaintiffs breach of contract claim was properly a statutory claim under the personnel management act holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim holding court may properly deny claim with prejudice where claim is refiled but remains insufficient holding preponderance of the evidence must be against a claim before the claim can be denied where factual record is insufficient remand required