WILLIAM L. RUSSELL, 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.
The trial court erred by refusing to allow the defendant gain time as mandated by a previous appellate decision.
The defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender, but the appellate court previously remanded for him to receive gain time. On remand, the trial cou…
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 Mandate Of Appellate Court cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
William Russell challenges his sentence as a habitual offender, raising four points on appeal. We agree with his first contention that the trial court’s refusal to allow him gain time conflicted with our mandate in a previ ous appearance of this case on appeal. Because we reverse based on this first issue, it is unnecessary for us to address Russell’s other points.
When this case first appeared before us, we remanded it to the trial court “for entry of an order which permits Russell, who was designated by the trial court to be a habitual offender but was sentenced to a guidelines sentence, to receive the appropriate gain time while serving his sentence and for modification of the written judgment and sentence.” Russell v. State, 605 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). On remand, the lower court entered an order stating that the issue was “whether [the trial judge] intended that the Defendant receive the gain time he would not normally receive as a habitual offender” and determining that the court indeed did intend to limit Russell’s gain time.
Obviously, this order did not comply with our mandate. We did not remand for the trial court to decide whether Russell should receive gain time; we had already determined he was entitled to it. Absent permission, a trial court has no authority to alter or evade a district court’s mandate; it must give precise effect to that dictate. Patten v. State, 531 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We remand this case, again, to the trial court with directions to enter an order that permits Russell to receive appropriate gain time while serving his sentence.
Reversed and remanded.
FRANK, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. O'Malley, 531 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Tullis v. State, 531 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Russell v. State, 605 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)