RICKY RANDALL RIDDELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Ricky Riddell appealed the trial court's denial of his motion challenging the Department of Corrections' calculation of his maximum release date, claiming he was not credited with 11 months 55 days of jail time that was awarded at sentencing. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the motion should have been treated as a petition for writ of mandamus rather than a motion to correct sentence.
The appellate court held that Riddell's motion challenging the Department's jail credit calculation should have been treated as a petition for writ of mandamus rather than a motion to correct sentence, since the motion did not challenge the sentence itself but sought an order directing the Department to comply with the sentence already imposed. The case was remanded for the trial court to consider whether Riddell exhausted all available administrative remedies.
[1] A motion challenging the Department of Corrections' calculation of a maximum release date, rather than the sentence imposed by the trial court, should be brought as a pet…
[2] A trial court may treat a motion improperly filed as a petition for writ of mandamus.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Since appellant's motion does not challenge the sentence imposed by the trial court, but seeks an order directing the Department to give full credit for time served, appellant should have sought relief by way of a petition for writ of mandamus, and not by way of a motion to correct sentence under section 3.800(a).”
Establishes the key distinction between challenges to the sentence itself versus challenges to administrative compliance with the sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRiddell received a sentence that included credit for 11 months 55 days of time served in county jail. However, the Department of Corrections failed to…
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 Inmate Grievance Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant, Ricky Randall Riddell, appeals the trial court's denial of his April 1988 motion entitled “Motion, for All County Jail Credit,” in which he challenged the Department of Corrections’ calculation of his maximum release date. According to appellant’s motion, the Department failed to credit appellant with 11 months 55 days of time served in the county jail, even though the sentence imposed by the trial court did reflect that amount of credit for time served. The trial court summarily denied the motion, without stating reasons for so doing.
The motion filed by the appellant was allegedly brought pursuant to Rule 3.800(a), Fla.R.Crim.P. and section 921.-161(1), Florida Statutes (providing that the sentencing court shall allow a defendant credit for all time spent in county jail before sentence is imposed, and that the amount of credit must be provided in the sentence).
Since appellant’s motion does not challenge the sentence imposed by the trial court, but seeks an order directing the Department to give full credit for time served, appellant should have sought relief by way of a petition for writ of mandamus, and not by way of a motion to correct sentence under section 3.800(a).
Although the trial court could have treated the motion as a petition for writ of mandamus, it appears from the wording of the order that it was treated as one for post-conviction relief. We therefore reverse the order denying appellant's motion, and remand for the trial court to consider the motion as a petition for writ of mandamus. In so doing, the trial court is directed to determine whether the appellant has exhausted all available administrative remedies through use of the Inmate Grievance Procedure outlined in Rule 33-3.007, Florida Administrative Code.
MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barber v. State, 661 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…rmines that the award of credit by the Department of Corrections does not conform to the sentencing order and that defendant has exhausted the available administrative remedies. Bowles v. State, 647 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Riddell v. State, 534 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Affirmed. . We invite the attention of the Department of Corrections to the sentencing order in circuit court case no. 92-19156. . Venue for such a mandamus proceeding is in the circuit court in Tallahassee, Leon County, Flor…
-
Genorval Slay v. Singletary, 676 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…tle him to immediate release, the trial court is directed to treat the petition as seeking mandamus relief against the Department of Corrections and to conduct such further proceedings as are necessary. Cf., Grimes v. State, supra; Riddell v. State, 534 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). ORDER VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. ERVIN, BOOTH, JOANOS, MINER, WOLF, WEBSTER, MICKLE, LAWRENCE, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur. . Because appellant’s offense was committed pri- or to October 1, 1989, ther…
-
Grimes v. State, 657 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…rved in the Department of Corrections. The merits of appellant’s claim, therefore, may not be addressed because appellant has not properly invoked the authority of this court. Reynolds v. State, 590 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Riddell v. State, 534 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Petition for writ of mandamus is the appropriate course of action in such cases. Id. We therefore remand this case for the court to treat the motion as a petition for writ of mandamus and at that time to determine whether app…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence