CURTIS DAVID WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
GERALD ABDUL HANIF WASI, SUPERINTENDENT GLADES CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, AND HARRY K. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 1996-10-16
Nos. 96-1218, 96-1503
Gunther, C.J., Polen, J., Farmer, J.
681 So. 2d 839 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 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.

Synopsis

The Department of Corrections had authority to forfeit both basic and incentive gain-time from a control release violator under Florida Statutes section 944.28(1), as both types of gain-time are legislative grants subject to forfeiture.

Holding

Both basic and incentive gain-time may be forfeited by the Department of Corrections when an inmate is returned to jail as a control release violator pursuant to section 944.28(1), Florida Statutes.

Headnotes

[1] Both basic and incentive gain-time earned by an inmate constitute rights granted as a matter of grace and are subject to forfeiture by the Department of Corrections when…

Previewing 1 of 1 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
Facts & Procedural History

Appellant Williams was returned to jail as a control release violator, and the Department of Corrections declared both his basic and incentive gain-ti…

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.

Topics
Forfeiture Of Rights Incentive Gain Time Gain Time Forfeiture Administrative Discretion

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Forfeiture Of Rights cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues that the Department of Corrections (DOC) acted without authority in declaring his basic gain-time forfeited after he was returned to jail as a control release violator. Appellant does not dispute that the DOC had the authority to declare his incentive gain-time forfeited. We find no merit in his distinction between basic gain-time and incentive gain-time, holding that both may be subject to forfeiture by the DOC pursuant to section 944.28(1), Florida Statutes (1995).

Section 944.28(1) provides that when a control release violator is returned to jail, the DOC may revoke “all gain-time [previously] earned according to the provisions of law.” As both basic and incentive gain-time derive from legislative grant, both should be considered “earned according to the provisions of law.” See id.

Further, the Legislature specifically refers to all earned gain-time, whether basic or incentive, as a right — one that is granted as a matter of grace and is not automatically retained, but is subject to forfeiture. See § 944.28(2)(b), (c); Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So. 2d 687 (Fla.1990); Rice v. State, 563 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). As such, the DOC was within its authority and discretion to revoke Appellant’s basic gain-time as well as his incentive gain-time pursuant to section 944.28(1). Accordingly, we find no error and affirm.

GUNTHER, C.J., and POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Hull v. Moore, 790 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
    …iture thereafter depending on the inmate’s conduct. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-603.402(3)(c); § 944.275(5), Fla. Stat. (1989, 1991); § 944.28(1), Fla. Stat. (1989, 1991); Singletary v. Jones, 681 So. 2d 836, 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Williams v. Wasi 681 So. 2d 839, 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Petitioner Hull understands the forfeiture of the previously awarded basic gain time but thinks that he is entitled to additional basic gain time under §§ 947.141(4) and 944.275(4)(a)3, Fla. Stat. (1989, 1991). He misconst…
  • Mack v. Crosby, 849 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
    …nt of Corrections properly forfeited the gain-time under section 944.28(1), Florida Statutes. We find that the circuit court applied the correct law in making this determination. See Forbes v. Singletary, 684 So. 2d 173 (Fla.1996); Williams v. Wasi, 681 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Therefore, we deny the petition. PETITION DENIED. DAVIS, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.…
  • Adams v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw