BERNARD KENDALL WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A state prisoner challenged the constitutionality of Florida's Mandatory Conditional Release statute, arguing that early release with parole-like supervision constituted double jeopardy. The court rejected this challenge, holding that the statute does not punish twice but rather provides an incentive system allowing prisoners who earn gain time and good time credits to serve part of their sentence in the community under state supervision.
The statute does not violate double jeopardy protections. A prisoner serves only one sentence, with the early release portion conditioned on earning statutory benefits through good conduct and compliance with prison regulations, while the remainder of the sentence is served in the community under state supervision.
[1] Gain time deductions and extra good time allowances are statutory benefits designed to reward prisoners for good conduct and effort during incarceration.
[2] A statute requiring a prisoner's release before the expiration of a full sentence due to earned gain time does not constitute double jeopardy.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Petitioner was sentenced to a term in prison and he has the opportunity to be released before his sentence actually expires if he complies with prison regulations and performs the labor required to obtain statutory benefits.”
Establishes that early release is conditioned on the prisoner's own compliance and conduct, not an additional punishment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Williams was sentenced to prison and had the opportunity to earn gain time deductions and extra good time allowances under Florida law. The…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Injunctive Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Petitioner has filed with the court a request for injunctive relief. He urges the illegality of Section 944.291, Florida Statutes (1977), which requires his release before the expiration of his full sentence if he has earned gain time deductions and extra good time allowances. This statute is a part of the Mandatory Conditional Release provision governing state prisoners. The allowance of gain time for good conduct and extra good time allowances are meant to reward those prisoners who have made an effort to conduct themselves in a manner the prison authorities deem proper during incarceration. The legislature has provided a method by which the benefits can be computed and if the prisoner properly conducts himself then the prison must release him before he has served the sentence the court ordered. Petitioner complains that he is not really released from the control of the state because the statute requires that he be under the supervision of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation as if on parole until the expiration of the period of time he would have served in prison had he not been given credit for his gain time and good time. He urges he is being subjected to double jeopardy which we assume he means he is being punished twice for the same crime. This is not so. Petitioner was sentenced to a term in prison and he has the opportunity to be released before his sentence actually expires if he complies with prison regulations and performs the labor required to obtain statutory benefits. He has the alternative, however, of not performing the labor and not behaving himself which will result in his being permitted to serve his entire sentence in prison instead of receiving the benefits of the Mandatory Conditional Release. Petitioner is serving only one sentence, a portion of which is in prison and the remainder of which is in freedom, subject to his being under the supervision of the state as if on parole.
The petition for permanent injunction which we treat as a petition for habeas corpus is DENIED.
MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haliburton v. State, 561 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1990)…subject to all statutes relating to parole, but in no event shall such supervision extend beyond 2 years, as determined by the Parole and Probation Commission. § 944.291(1), Fla.Stat. (emphasis added). We approve the reasoning in Williams v. State, 370 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), in which the court stated that one released on MCR is serving a sentence, a portion of which is in prison, and the remainder in freedom subject to supervision as if on parole. We disagree that this murder was not cold, calculat…