ROBERT A. KNUCK, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE
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 revised procedure for computing statutory gain time, based on actual time served rather than the original sentence, is a procedural change not barred by the ex post facto clause.
An inmate challenged the Department of Corrections' calculation of his tentative release date, arguing the revised procedure for computing 'gain time'…
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 Administrative Order Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a prison inmate, seeks review of an administrative order establishing his tentative release date. Appellant contends the Department has incorrectly computed his “good time,”1 and that the Department’s revised procedure for computing statutory “gain time”2 constitutes an impermissible ex post facto law. We affirm the order appealed.
At the time appellant committed his offense the Department awarded statutory “gain time” based on the term of incarceration imposed; the Department’s revised procedure awards such “gain time” based on the term actually served, rather than the sentence which was initially imposed. This revised procedure resulted from the Department’s reinterpretation of the existing statute, § 944.27(1), Florida Statutes (1975). We conclude that this revised procedure is a procedural change which is not constrained by the ex post facto clause of the federal or Florida constitution, and which thus may be applied to release computations for inmates under sentence for offenses committed prior to implementation of the revised procedure. See Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977); Rifai v. U. S. Parole Commission, 586 F. 2d 695 (9th Cir. 1978); but see Love v. Fitzharris, 460 F. 2d 382 (9th Cir. 1972), vacated as moot, 409 U.S. 1100, 93 S.Ct. 896, 34 L.Ed.2d 682 (1973).3 Unlike Love, the present case involves a general release statute, rather than release criteria specifically annexed to the inmate’s offense.
The agency record submitted with this appeal supports the Department’s computation of appellant’s “good time.”
Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.
McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. . Section 944.29, Florida Statutes (1975).
. Section 944.27(1), Florida Statutes (1975).
. While these cases preceded Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), Weaver involved a substantive statutory change and does not alter the rule announced in the cited cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williamson v. Dep't OF Corr., 411 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of mandamus has been treated as an appeal of final agency action. The decision of the Secretary’s representative is affirmed. See Knuck v. Department of Corrections, 409 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). BOOTH, SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.…
-
Knuck v. Louie L. Wainwright, 759 F.2d 856 (11th Cir. 1985)…United States Constitution. Knuck first raised the ex post facto claim in the Florida courts, which held that the recalculation was a procedural change and, therefore, not constrained by the ex post facto clause. Knuck v. Department of Corrections, 409 So. 2d 1224 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.), review denied, 419 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 1982). Knuck committed various crimes in October 1975, to which he pled guilty in April 1976. He was sentenced to 15 years in the state penitentiary plus five years probation to begin at the…
Authorities Cited
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1981)
- Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1977)
- Ahssem Rifai v. United States Parole Comm'n & Warden, 586 F.2d 695 (9th Cir. 1978)
- Love v. Fitzharris, 460 F.2d 382 (9th Cir. 1972)
- Fitzharris v. Love, 409 U.S. 1100 (U.S. 1973)