GEORGE ROGERS, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIS L. WAINWRIGHT, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to gain time under both the former and amended statutes, as the amended statute did not violate the ex post facto clause.
Petitioner sought habeas corpus, claiming he was entitled to gain time credits under both a former statute and a newly enacted statute. The new statut…
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 Ex Post Facto Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus complains that respondent failed to credit him with additional gain time allowances due him under Section 944.275(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1978), for the period July 1, 1978 (effective date of the statute) to January 1, 1979. This court issued order to show cause, the response to .which demonstrates recomputation of petitioner’s gain time to comply with that portion of the statute. Petitioner also contends that in addition to accrual of gain time under the new statute, Section 944.275, he is also entitled to the benefit of gain time computed under former Section 944.27, Florida Statutes (1977),1 which was in effect at the time of his sentence in March, 1977. Under Section 944.27, petitioner’s statutory gain time of 540 days was applied by the Department of Corrections to his five-year sentence to arrive at a tentative expiration date of July 8, 1980. After passage of Section 944.275 petitioner was informed that his tentative release date computed under the new law (Section 944.275(l)(a), (b) and (c), Florida Statutes, 1978), would be March 5, 1981, some 240 days later. The argument is raised by petitioner that his loss of gain time, mandated by computations required under the amended statute, is expressly forbidden by the ex post facto provisions of Article I, Sections 9 and 10, United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 10, Florida Constitution. We find that this question has already been decided adversely to petitioner by the Supreme Court of Florida in Harris v. Wainwright, 376 So. 2d 855, 1979.
The petition is denied.
McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. . Repealed by Section 2, Chapter 78-304, Laws of Florida (1978), effective July 1, 1978.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hoyt Weaver v. Graham, 376 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1979)
- Hennard Harris v. Louie L. Wainwright, 376 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1979)