ROGER TAYLOR, 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 denial of the motion for post-conviction relief was proper because the Department of Corrections, not the court, has the authority to calculate credit for time served.
Taylor requested increased credit for time served from the Department of Corrections, which refused. He then filed a motion for post-conviction relief…
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 Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Roger Taylor (“Taylor”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the denial of the 3.800(a) motion, but without prejudice to Taylor exercising his right to file a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department of Corrections (“DOC”).
Prior to filing his 3.800(a) motion, Taylor requested that the DOC increase the credit awarded to him for time served in prison. The DOC refused, maintaining that such relief was available only through the court. When Taylor then petitioned the court for increased credit through a 3.800(a) motion, the trial court denied the motion on the basis that it was the Department of Correction’s function, not the court’s, to calculate credit for time served.
Denial of the 3.800(a) motion was proper. The DOC is lawfully vested with the authority to consider complaints regarding miscalculations of credit for time served. Posey v. Kaplan, 660 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Harvey v. State, 616 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Further, issues regarding credit for time served are not properly the subject of Rule 3.800(a) motions. Sullivan v. State, 674 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995); State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995). Thus, the trial court’s denial of Taylor’s motion must be affirmed.
Nevertheless, Taylor may address his concerns to the trial court in the form of a petition for writ of mandamus. Taylor has once addressed the DOC with his complaint, which the DOC wrongfully refused to entertain; a petition for mandamus is the proper venue for permitting the trial court to compel the DOC to award any credit due. See Smith v. State, — So. 2d -, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D851 [1996 WL 165407] (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 10,1996); Posey, 660 So. 2d at 782.
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER, C.J., and FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moreland v. State, 700 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…time served after sentencing. Appellant’s remedy is to request the credit from the Department of Corrections; after exhausting his administrative remedy, Appellant may file a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department. See Taylor v. State, 677 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Washington v. State, 662 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We also affirm the denial as to the other relief requested as to the first count, in which Appellant was sentenced to eight years on a second degree felony, which carrie…
-
Smith v. State, 785 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…s his sentences must be addressed by filing an administrative complaint with the department, and then, if necessary, by filing a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department in the circuit court where he is incarcerated. See Taylor v. State, 677 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Killings v. State, 567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Green v. State, 698 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), cause dismissed, 705 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1997). Our affirmance is without prejudice to his doing so. DELL, STONE, and T…
-
Clark Leichty v. Clerk OF Cir. Court, 948 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…(holding that where clerk refused to file legal document, circuit court should have granted mandamus); see also Martin v. Krischer, 783 So. 2d 1170, 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Green v. State, 698 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Taylor v. State, 677 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). PETITION FOR MANDAMUS DENIED. GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Sullivan v. State, 674 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Posey v. The Honorable Stanton S. Kaplan, 660 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Harvey v. State, 616 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)