VIRGIL FOX, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, 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 appellate court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
An inmate challenged a disciplinary action for possessing escape paraphernalia, which resulted in confinement and loss of gain time. The inmate sought…
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 Prima Facie Case For Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, an inmate in the state prison system, seeks review of a final order summarily denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that “the petition on its face has failed to state any cause upon which relief may be granted.” We reverse.
Appellant’s petition challenged the procedure by which he was disciplined for allegedly possessing “escape paraphernalia.” The disciplinary action resulted in disciplinary confinement for 60 days and the loss of 300 days of gain time. The relief requested was that all reference to the disciplinary action be removed from appellant’s file, and that the lost gain time be restored.
Because appellant did not allege that he was entitled to immediate release from incarceration, we treat his petition as one for a writ of mandamus, rather than habeas corpus. E.g., Mathis v. Singletary, 608 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Our review of appellant’s petition satisfies us that it presents “a prima facie case for relief.” Accordingly, the trial court should have issued an alternative writ, as required by rule 1.630(d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
We reverse and remand. On remand, the trial court shall issue an alternative writ, and conduct such further proceedings as may prove necessary.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
JOANOS, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrison v. State, 667 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…. The trial court should have considered appellant’s petition as one for mandamus, rather than habeas corpus, because, even with the application of a 1406-day credit in Case No. 88-418, he is not entitled to immediate release. See Fox v. Singletary, 635 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). . Appellant contends that he was given the same sentence in both cases, which is supported by the written plea agreement; however, the sentencing transcript reflects that the above sentences were those actually imposed.…
Authorities Cited
- Mathis v. Singletary, 608 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)