JULIAN C. ANDREU, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
In this habeas corpus petition, the Florida court addresses whether a defendant who served federal parole time while a Florida detainer was in effect has completed his Florida sentence. The court holds that federal authorities' erroneous release of the defendant on parole despite the Florida detainer does not satisfy the defendant's Florida sentence obligation.
The defendant has not completed his Florida sentences and is not entitled to release. The erroneous release by federal authorities despite the existing Florida detainer does not excuse the defendant's Florida sentence obligation, and Florida retains the right to enforce its laws.
[1] A state's right to enforce its laws and its sentences is not necessarily waived by the erroneous release of a prisoner by federal authorities, especially when a detainer…
[2] A prisoner is not entitled to release if they have not yet completed serving their sentences.
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“both cases cited by defendant are distinguishable because they involve the early release of a prisoner due to a mistake of Florida officials, while in this case the federal authorities erroneously released the defendant despite the existing Florida detainer”
Explains why the defendant's precedents do not apply; distinguishes errors by Florida versus federal authorities
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1978, Andreu was sentenced to two concurrent five-year terms for burglaries of structures, permitted to serve time in federal facility concurrent w…
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 Parole cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Defendant seeks a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he has served his sentences and is entitled to immediate release. In 1978, defendant was sentenced to two concurrent five-year terms of incarceration for burglaries of structures. The sentences provided that defendant could serve his time in a federal facility, concurrent with his incarceration for federal parole violations, and defendant was released to federal authorities. In 1980, the federal authorities released defendant on parole, notwithstanding a Florida detainer lodged against him, and without prior notification to the Florida authorities. Defendant was re-arrested in 1983 for federal parole violations and Florida authorities were notified of his status for the first time.
However, an attempt by Florida officials to have the defendant detained after his re-arrest was unsuccessful and defendant was again released on federal parole which he successfully completed in 1985. In 1987, Florida authorities located and took defendant into custody to complete his five-year sentences. Defendant contends that he is entitled to release because he has a right to serve his sentence in one continuous period of imprisonment, and therefore his sentence was completed as of 1983. See, e.g., State v. Coleman, 149 Fla. 28, 5 So. 2d 60 (1941); Carson v. State, 489 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
However, both cases cited by defendant are distinguishable because they involve the early release of a prisoner due to a mistake of Florida officials, while in this case the federal authorities erroneously released the defendant despite the existing Florida detainer. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 426 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), rev. denied, 437 So. 2d 677 (Fla.1983) (failure of State of New York to honor Florida detainer should not result in denial of Florida’s right to enforce its laws).
The defendant has not yet completed serving his Florida sentences and therefore is not entitled to release. See Sheppard v. Mayo, 46 So. 2d 729 (Fla.1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 927, 71 S.Ct. 484, 95 L.Ed. 669 (1951).
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED.
ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Ex Rel. Libtz v. Coleman, 5 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 1941)
- Carson v. State, 489 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Williams v. State, 426 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Hoshor v. Heinze, 340 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1951)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., 340 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1951)