JOHN PETTWAY, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, AS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
Pettway sought judicial review of the Department of Corrections' denial of incentive gain-time during the final 45 days of his incarceration. The court held that while the DOC has discretion to grant incentive gain-time, it must apply this discretion uniformly unless a properly adopted rule provides justification for differential treatment.
The court held that while the DOC has discretion to grant or deny incentive gain-time under the statute, it must apply this discretion uniformly to all prisoners unless a properly adopted administrative rule provides justification for different treatment. The DOC lacked authority to arbitrarily deny incentive gain-time without an administratively-adopted rule.
[1] A Department of Corrections may deny incentive gain-time, but must do so uniformly unless there is justification and authority for differential treatment of prisoners.
[2] A Department of Corrections cannot arbitrarily deny incentive gain-time to prisoners during their last month or more of incarceration without an adopted rule in accordanc…
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“the DOC must uniformly grant or deny incentive gain-time unless there is some justification and authority for classifying and treating some prisoners different from other prisoners”
Establishes that while the DOC has discretionary authority, it must apply this discretion uniformly across all prisoners absent a valid rule
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePettway was an inmate who was denied incentive gain-time during the last 45 days of his incarceration by the Department of Corrections. This denial ex…
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 Incentive Gain Time cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Pettway filed a “Petition for Judicial Review of Administrative Action” seeking review of action taken by the Department of Corrections (DOC) which denied him incentive gain-time during the last 45 days of his incarceration and thereby extended his incarceration by approximately 20 days. We treated this petition for review as a petition for writ of mandamus/habeas corpus and ordered the DOC to show cause why the petition should not be granted. After con sidering DOC’s response and Pettway’s reply thereto on May 24, 1984, we granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered the DOC to release Pettway. At that time we stated that this opinion would follow.
DOC contends that the grant of incentive gain-time is optional, not mandatory, because § 944.275(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (1983), states that the DOC “may” grant incentive gain-time. DOC therefore contends that under the statute it has discretion to award or not to award incentive gain-time. While it is true that the statute is not mandatory and the DOC may deny incentive gain-time, the DOC must uniformly grant or deny incentive gain-time unless there is some justification and authority for classifying and treating some prisoners different from other prisoners. The DOC argues that it needs a cut-off date for granting incentive gain-time in order to determine a definite release date sufficiently in advance of a prisoner’s release and in order to properly prepare for the prisoner’s release. While this might be a justifiable basis for adopting a rule authorizing such a procedure, no such rule has been adopted. Until the DOC adopts a rule in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and affected parties have had an opportunity to contest the validity of such a rule, the DOC is without authority to arbitrarily deny incentive gain-time to prisoners during their last month or more of incarceration.
ERVIN, C.J., and WIGGINTON, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
RAY v. State, 480 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…tion of basic gain time. . There is no automatic right to receive incentive gain time, Dickinson v. Wainwright, 416 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); but the procedures for awarding incentive gain time must be applied uniformly, Pettway v. Wainwright, 450 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).…
-
Sherrill Turner v. Singletary, 623 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…e we further explained: While there is no automatic right to receive day-for-day work gain time, Dickinson v. Wainwright, 416 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the procedures for awarding the gain time must be applied uniformly, Pettway v. Wainwright, 450 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). This court has also held that since its jurisdiction to entertain direct appeals by prisoners from final orders of agencies has been eliminated, prisoners may seek their remedy in circuit court by way of a petition for an extrao…
-
Hall v. Louie L. Wainwright, 498 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…s is an improper remedy. While there is no automatic right to receive day-for-day work gain time, Dickinson v. Wainwright, 416 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the procedures for awarding the gain time must be applied uniformly, Pettway v. Wainwright, 450 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). This court has also held that since its jurisdiction to entertain direct appeals by prisoners from final orders of agencies has been eliminated, prisoners may seek their remedy in circuit court by way of a petition for an extrao…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence