RUSSELL D. MAYO, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD L. DUGGER, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1988-11-18
No. 87-1883
THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
535 So. 2d 300 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1988) Caution
Cited by 12 cases

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.

Synopsis

Russell Mayo appealed the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus seeking administrative gain-time credits while imprisoned. The court reversed, finding that the Department of Corrections improperly denied gain-time based on an Alabama assault and battery conviction without evidence that a sexual act was involved.


Holding

The court held that the ex post facto argument lacked merit under Blankenship v. Dugger, but reversed the denial of the mandamus petition because there was no evidence in the record establishing that a sexual act was attempted or completed in connection with the assault and battery conviction.


Headnotes

[1] A conviction for assault and battery in another state does not disqualify an inmate from administrative gain-time under Florida Statute section 944.276(1)(c) unless the r…

[2] The application of Florida Statute section 944.276 to deny administrative gain-time is not an ex post facto violation when the statute was in effect at the time the inmat…

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

Key Quotes

“whenever the inmate population of the correctional system reaches 98 percent of its lawful capacity, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections may grant all inmates who are earning incentive gain-time up to a maximum of 60 days administrative gain-time, unless such inmates fall within one of the four exceptions enumerated in section 944.276(l)(a) through (d).”

Establishes the statutory framework for administrative gain-time eligibility and the exceptions that apply

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Mayo was convicted of manslaughter in Okaloosa County in March 1986 and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. In 1971, he was arrested in Alabama on a r…

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.


Opinion of the Court
SHIVERS, Judge.

SHIVERS, Judge.

Upon consideration of Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing and Clarification, we withdraw and vacate our previous opinion and substitute the following in order to clarify the basis for our decision. Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing is denied.

Appellant, Russell D. Mayo, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of mandamus.

We find that the Department of Corrections erred in denying Mayo’s request for administrative gain-time, and reverse the trial court’s order.

The record on appeal indicates that appellant was convicted in Okaloosa County of manslaughter on March 17, 1986, and was sentenced to a 15-year term of imprisonment. In 1971, appellant had been arrested in Alabama on a rape charge; however, the charge was reduced to assault and battery and appellant was eventually ordered to pay a $100 fine and court costs amounting to $42.50. While serving the 15-year term for manslaughter at Appala-chee Correctional Institution, appellant filed a request for administrative gain-time pursuant to section 944.276, Florida Statutes. According to that section, whenever the inmate population of the correctional system reaches 98 percent of its lawful capacity, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections may grant all inmates who are earning incentive gain-time up to a maximum of 60 days administrative gain-time, unless such inmates fall within one of the four exceptions enumerated in section 944.276(l)(a) through (d).

The exception found in subsection (l)(c) denies administrative gain-time to any inmates who have been convicted of either sexual battery or any sexual offense specified in section 917.-012(1) (procedures for handling and treatment of mentally disordered sex offenders) and who have not successfully completed a program of treatment pursuant to that section. Included within the sexual offenses specified in section 917.012(1) are assault, aggravated assault, battery, or aggravated battery when a sexual act is completed or attempted.

Section 917.012(l)(e), (f).

Appellant’s request for administrative gain-time was denied by the Department on the basis that appellant had been convicted in Alabama of assault and/or battery involving an attempted or completed sexual act, and was thus ineligible for administrative gain-time under section 944.276(l)(c). After exhausting all available administrative remedies, appellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court. The petition was denied and appellant filed this appeal, arguing that the use of section 944.276 to deny him gain-time constituted an ex post facto application of the statute, since it did not come into effect until 1987 —some 16 years after his 1971 Alabama conviction.

We find appellant’s ex post facto argument to be without merit, in light of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent holding in Blankenship v. Dugger, 521 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1988). However, we reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus since there is no evidence in the record on appeal in the instant case to establish that a sexual act was either attempted or completed in connection with the assault and battery for which the appellant was convicted in Alabama.

Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus is hereby reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Dugger v. Rodrick, 584 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1991)
    …s not operate to deprive appellant of a substantive right, it is not ex post facto as applied to him. Miller, 565 So. 2d at 848-49. Accord Henderson v. State, 543 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 551 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1989); Mayo v. Dugger, 535 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). This case is controlled by Blankenship v. Dugger, 521 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1988), in which this Court passed on the question of whether an inmate who committed crimes in 1984 was properly denied administrative gain time under secti…
  • Dugger v. Wiley Jerome Grant, 587 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
    …inmate. While, based on Dugger v. Rodrick, it would appear that an inmate has limited rights, the D.O.C. must still administer the statute in accordance with statutory guidelines. Bishop v. Dugger, 582 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Mayo v. Dugger, 535 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Under the statute, an inmate may only be denied provisional credits if there is some evidence that the inmate has been found to have fallen into one of the statutory categories which specifically provides for denial of credits.…
  • Henderson v. State, 543 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
    …violative of the ex post facto restrictions of Article I, section 9, clause 3, of the United States Constitution, being procedural in nature and not creating substantive rights. See Blankenship v. Dugger, 521 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1988); Mayo v. Dugger, 535 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Tims v. Folsom, 535 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 [*346] L.Ed.2d 344 (1977). Rule 33-19.001(3) provides: An offender shall be considered amenable for treatment if he or she…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw