ALTON D. BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, 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.
Brown appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging the calculation of his gain-time credits and release date across three consecutive sentences. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the petition lacked sufficient factual allegations and that habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy for challenging release date calculations.
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that the petition contained only conclusory allegations without supporting argument, failed to allege that relief would result in immediate release or a new trial, and that habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy to establish or challenge release date calculations.
[1] A petition for writ of habeas corpus must contain more than conclusory allegations; it must include supporting arguments.
[2] A writ of habeas corpus may not be granted if the requested relief would not entitle the petitioner to an immediate release or a new trial.
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 petition for writ of habeas corpus contains only conclusory allegations relating to the computation of petitioner's gain-time and release date, but contains no argument whatsoever in support of these allegations”
Establishes the first basis for affirming denial—lack of factual support and argument in the petition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown began serving a four-year sentence in July 1975. In 1976, he escaped from work release, committed robbery, and received a consecutive twenty-yea…
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 Conclusory Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant Brown first began serving a four-year sentence in July of 1975. In 1976 he escaped while on the work release program, was captured 29 days later after committing a robbery, and was given a twenty-year sentence to run consecutively with the four-year sentence. In 1977 he received an additional five-year sentence for possession of a weapon, also to run consecutively, for a total sentence of twenty-nine years.
In November of 1985 Brown filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the circuit court, alleging that he had not been given the proper amount of gain-time while serving his original four-year sentence, that disciplinary reports received during the four-year sentence should not have resulted in the loss of gain-time during his twenty-year sentence, and that the respondent had “conspired to confuse him” by giving him different release dates in response to his several requests for calculation of his release date. Brown now appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to state grounds upon which relief could be granted.
We affirm the trial court’s ruling.
First, the petition for writ of habeas corpus contains only conclusory allegations relating to the computation of petitioner’s gain-time and release date, but contains no argument whatsoever in support of these allegations.
Second, since the petition fails to allege that the relief requested would entitle the petitioner to either an immediate release or a new trial, the writ may not be granted. Jenrette v. Wainwright, 410 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Black v. State, 490 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Third, even assuming the petition had been facially sufficient, this court has held that the remedy of habeas corpus is not available to academically establish a release date, Rinehart v. Cochran, 137 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962), or to obtain review of the circuit court order relating to either the calculation or the establishment of a release date. Black v. State, supra.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is AFFIRMED.
MILLS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robert E. Banks v. Jones, 197 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…on its face. 167 So. at 35. Thus, historically, a person seeking relief by writ of habeas corpus is — and by definition must be — asserting that he or she is entitled to immediate liberty and release from unlawful detention. In Brown v. Wainwright, 498 So. 2d 679, 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), we held where a petition for writ of habeas corpus “fails to allege that the relief requested would entitle the petitioner to either an immediate release or a new trial, the writ may not be granted.” (Emphasis added.) This…
-
Adams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 512 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…Fla. 1st DCA 1979). This is true despite appellant’s failure to allege that restoration of his gain time would entitle him to immediate release or new trial, generally a prerequisite to consideration of a habeas corpus petition. Brown v. Wainwright, 498 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Because permitting an inmate the limited right to call witnesses is a mandatory prison official duty under the United States Constitution, a writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy. Shannon v. Mitchell, 460 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 4t…
-
Jett v. State, 722 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…lier dismissal of count II would not entitle the Defendant to habeas corpus relief. A habeas corpus petition which fails to allege that the relief requested would entitle the petitioner to immediate relief should not be granted. Brown v. Wainwright, 498 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The 1994, sentence reflects that the Defendant was sentenced to both counts for fifteen (15) years to run concurrently. Therefore, even if count II had been dismissed the Defendant would not be entitled to immediate release base…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Forbes v. Stefan, 410 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Buford Lee Jenrette v. Louie L. Wainwright, 410 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Black v. State, 490 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Harris v. State, 137 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- State ex rel. Ted Rinehart v. Cochran, 137 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)