RICKY CHAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD L. DUGGER, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
The court held that the prisoner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to administrative gain time, thus the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus was correct.
[1] A writ of mandamus requires a petitioner to demonstrate a clear legal right, an indisputable legal duty on the part of the respondent, and the absence of any other adequa…
[2] Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to enforce an established legal right, not to create or establish that right.
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 intelligenceAppellant, a prisoner, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the appellee to grant him administrative gain time. He claimed entitlement based on complet…
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 Administrative Gain Time cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant, a prisoner, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus, in which he sought to compel appellee to grant him administrative gain time pursuant to section 944.276(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1987).1 We affirm.
The trial judge correctly denied the petition on the ground that appellant did not show the “requisites for obtaining relief through writ of mandamus.” In order to show entitlement to .relief by petition for writ of mandamus,
the petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right on his part, an indisputable legal duty on the part of respondents, and that no other adequate remedy exists. [Citations omitted.] Mandamus is available to enforce an established legal right but not to establish that right. [Citations omitted.]
State, Department of Health, Etc. v. Hartsfield, 399 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Appellant’s assertion that he is entitled to credit for administrative gain time pursuant to section 944.276(1)(c) because he has a certificate stating that he “satisfactorily completed” a group therapy sex offender program at Apalachee Correctional Institution does not establish a clear legal right to administrative gain time under the statute since the record shows that a question exists as to whether his completion of that treatment program can be categorized as “successful.” Further, the record neither contains evidence nor does appellant indicate that he has pursued any administrative remedies available through rule 33-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, which provides for inmate grievance procedures.
For the above reasons, appellant failed to show his entitlement to relief through petition for writ of mandamus. Therefore, the trial court’s denial of that petition is affirmed.
WENTWORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . That statutory subsection provides for the granting of administrative gain time to inmates, under certain conditions, unless the inmates:
(c) Were convicted of sexual battery or any sexual offense specified in s. 917.012(1) and have not successfully completed a program of treatment pursuant to s. 917.012; or_
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morse Diesel Int'l, Inc. v. 2000 Island Boulevard, Inc., 698 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…no other adequate remedy exists. See Pino v. District Court of Appeal, Third Dist., 604 So. 2d 1232, 1233 (Fla.1992); Hatten v. State, 561 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla.1990); Parsons v. Wennet, 625 So. 2d 945, 948 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Chavis v. Dugger, 538 So. 2d 120, 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); State ex rel. Blatt v. Panelfab Int’l Corp., 314 So. 2d 196, 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). “Mandamus is available to enforce an established legal right but not to establish that right.” Chavis, 538 So. 2d at 120; see also Blatt,…
-
Woodland v. Honorable Hubert R. Lindsey, 586 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…ial court to rule on the violation. In order for petitioner to be entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus the petition must demonstrate the existence of a clear legal right to compel the performance of an indisputable duty. Chavis v. Dugger, 538 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Both the statute and the rule of criminal procedure establish petitioner’s clear legal right and the judge’s indisputable duty to enter an order revoking, modifying, or continuing her probation. Section 948.06, Florida Statutes…
-
Henderson v. State, 543 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…dment protections apply prior to conviction. See Marcheti v. U.S., 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation, 406 U.S. 472, 92 S.Ct. 1670, 32 L.Ed.2d 234 (1972). Cf. Chavis v. Dugger, 538 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Even if the requirement of admission of guilt under the rule impinged on Fifth Amendment rights, the inmate is not compelled to incriminate himself because the inmate may choose not to participate in the program. Affirmed. ERV…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Hartsfield, 399 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)