CHARLES E. SIERS, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA STATE SENATE, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1994-10-11
No. 93-3985
ZEHMER, C.J., and KAHN, J., concur., BENTON, J., concurs in result only.
644 So. 2d 116 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1994) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 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.


Holding

The court held that rescinding previously awarded provisional gain time does not violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution.


Facts & Procedural History

Charles Siers filed a petition for writ of mandamus, alleging that the Florida Senate's passage of a bill caused the Department of Corrections to resc…

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
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Charles Siers appeals an order which dismissed his petition for writ of mandamus. We affirm.

The petition for writ of mandamus filed in the trial court claimed that the Florida Senate’s action in passing Senate Bill No., 26B (1993) (now section 944.278, Florida Statutes (1993)) was a violation of the ex post facto provision of the United States Constitution because it had the effect of causing the Department of Corrections to rescind provisional or administrative gain time which had previously been awarded. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim.

Siers filed a notice of appeal. He again argues that rescinding previously awarded provisional gain time is a violation of the ex post facto provisions of the United States Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court has rejected this exact argument in Langley v. Singletary, 645 So. 2d 961 (Fla.1994); see Griffin v. Singletary, 638 So. 2d 500 (Fla.1994). We also reject appellant’s argument for the reasons expressed in Langley and Griffin.

ZEHMER, C.J., and KAHN, J., concur. BENTON, J., concurs in result only.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Remberto Orasaba v. State, 667 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Griffin v. Singletary, 638 So. 2d 500 (Fla.1994); Siers v. Florida State Senate, 644 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA1994). BOOTH, JOANOS and BENTON, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw