GEORGE K. SUSICK
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a federal prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The prisoner sought to compel the resolution of a state detainer or its removal, but the court found it lacked the power to interfere with federal custody decisions or compel the resolution of the detainer.
No, the appellate court does not have the power to compel a state court to resolve a detainer against a federal prisoner or set aside the detainer. A detainer is merely a request between executive agencies and does not, on its own, implicate a liberty interest or affect custody status until the prisoner is eligible for release by the detaining authority.
[1] A state detainer is an informal request filed by a criminal justice agency that does not carry the force of law and does not implicate constitutionally protected liberty…
[2] A court lacks authority to compel a circuit court to dispose of a violation of probation charge while a prisoner is incarcerated on other charges.
Previewing 2 of 2 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““Generally, under such circumstances, a prisoner is not in custody pursuant to the detainer. Only if the prisoner is subject to release but is being held because a detainer has been lodged can it be said that the prisoner is in custody pursuant to the detainer.””
This quote explains when a detainer actually impacts a prisoner's custody status, establishing that it's not automatic.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Susick, a federal prisoner, had a state detainer against him for failing to appear at a violation of probation hearing. He sought to have the d…
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 Executive Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
LONG, J.
George Susick seeks review of a trial court order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 A detainer is an informal request filed by a criminal justice agency asking the institution where the prisoner is incarcerated “either to hold the prisoner for the agency or to notify the agency when release of the prisoner is imminent.” Gethers v. State, 838 So. 2d 504, 507 (Fla. 2003). “Generally, under such circumstances, a prisoner is not in custody pursuant to the detainer. Only if the prisoner is subject to release but is being held because a detainer has been lodged can it be said that the prisoner is in custody pursuant to the detainer.” Id. Susick claims he is not being considered for certain federal prison programs and is being held at a different custody level due to the detainer. Susick has years left on his federal sentence. We have no power to set aside a state detainer because it does not carry the force of law. Only liberty interests implicate the due process clause, and a detainer on its own does not affect liberty. See John v. Crews, 149 So. 3d 149, 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (denying relief because the prisoner “could not demonstrate any constitutionally protected liberty interest”).
A detainer is a request, not an order, and concerns agreement between two executive branch agencies. Susick may be losing out on benefits in federal prison, but that is a result of executive discretion that we cannot examine. We also have no power to interfere with federal custody decisions. See Saunders v. State, 837 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
There is no mechanism by which Susick can force the circuit court to dispose of the violation of probation while he is in prison on other charges. Burgess v. State, 913 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
For these reasons we AFFIRM.2 BILBREY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.1 The proper vehicle to challenge a detainer is a petition for writ of mandamus. Moore v. State, 137 So. 3d 611, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
We do not hold this faulty designation against Susick because “no cause shall be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought.” Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 2 Susick’s motion to reconstrue his petition is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Saunders v. State, 837 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Garrick John v. Crews, 149 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Moore v. State, 137 So. 3d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Burgess v. State, 913 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)