MATHEW P. MCCONNAUGHY, 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.
McConnaughy appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion seeking to invalidate his plea on grounds of involuntariness due to subsequent changes in administrative rules affecting gain-time eligibility and prisoner reimbursement costs. The court affirms the denial but on different grounds, holding that his complaints do not concern trial court or counsel actions but rather administrative rule amendments that should be addressed through administrative remedies or mandamus petitions.
McConnaughy is not entitled to relief under Rule 3.850 because his complaints do not concern actions by the trial court or trial counsel but rather administrative rule amendments and legislative changes. Such issues must first be pursued through administrative remedies and, if necessary, through a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department of Corrections in circuit court.
[1] A claim that an amendment to an administrative rule has rendered a prior plea involuntary must first be pursued through administrative remedies before seeking relief in t…
[2] A claim that subsequent legislation requiring prisoners to reimburse the state for confinement costs has rendered a prior plea involuntary must first be pursued through a…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“It is clear from McConnaughy's motion that his complaint does not lie with the trial court or with trial counsel, but rather concerns the amendment of an administrative rule that allegedly has the effect of denying him incentive gain-time.”
Establishes that Rule 3.850 is not the proper vehicle for challenging post-conviction administrative changes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcConnaughy entered a plea of no contest to first-degree murder and sexual battery on October 9, 1990, based on his understanding that he would be eli…
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 Gain Time Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mathew P. McConnaughy timely appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his Rule 3.850 motion, which alleges two claims of involuntariness of plea. The trial court denied his motion on the basis that it was untimely for purposes of Rule 3.850. We affirm, but not for the reason stated by the trial court, as will be explained.
McConnaughy in his first claim alleges that on October 9, 1990, he entered a plea of no contest to first-degree murder and sexual battery based on his understanding that under the terms of the plea bargain he would be eligible for gain-time. He complains that his plea has been subsequently rendered involuntary due to the subsequent amendment to “Chapter 33-11 F.A.C.” under which he is no longer eligible to receive incentive gain-time.
We note that the supreme court’s recent opinion in Gwong v. Singletary, 683 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1996), a mandamus proeeed-ing, appears to support his claim. Gwong concluded that the recent amendment by the Department of Corrections to Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-11.0065 violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws because it applied to a class of inmates who committed their offenses before the effective date of the statute and it enhanced the measure of punishment by eliminating the ability of certain inmates to earn incentive gain-time.
We conclude that McConnaughy is not entitled to relief under Rule 3.850, but not for the reason stated by the court. It is clear from McConnaughy’s motion that his complaint does not lie with the trial court or with trial counsel, but rather concerns the amend ment of an administrative rule that allegedly has the effect of denying him incentive gain-time. Instead, he should first pursue his administrative remedies and then, if necessary, file a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department of Corrections in the circuit court. See, e.g., King v. State, 665 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice on this issue.
McConnaughy in his second claim argues that his plea has been rendered involuntary due to the passing of legislation that requires prisoners to reimburse the state for the cost of their confinement. The statutory provision at issue appears to be section 951.033, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), which allows “local detention facilities” to collect from prisoners “all or a fair portion of their daily subsistence costs.” Again, we conclude that McConnaughy is not entitled to relief under Rule 3.850 because his complaint does not lie with action taken by the trial court or trial counsel. He should first pursue his administrative remedies and then, if necessary, file a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department of Corrections in the circuit court. King.
Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice on this issue as well.
GOSHORN, HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Verwayne Alexander v. State, 697 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…es, he may seek mandamus relief against the department by proper motion in the circuit court. Our affirmance is without prejudice to his pursuing those avenues of relief. See Howard v. State, 688 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); McConnaughy v. State, 684 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). See also [*1018] Washington v. State, 683 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). AFFIRMED. GUNTHER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Howard v. State, 688 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…ment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-11.0065, which applied retroactively to deny him the ability to earn incentive gain time. We affirm as this claim does not state a claim cognizable in a postconvietion proceeding. See McConnaughy v. State, 684 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Washington v. State, [*993] 683 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Howard seeking mandamus relief in circuit court, if necessary, to require the Department of Corrections to restore his incent…
-
Derick E. Hatchett v. State, 766 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…it of mandamus against DOC); Green v. State, 698 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (error in calculating credit for unforfeited gain time is DOC’s fault, so proper remedy is administrative complaint, then mandamus in trial court); McConnaughy v. State, 684 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (prisoner claiming DOC had erroneously applied new regulation to deny gain time award must first pursue this administrative remedies and if necessary file a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court). For these reasons…
Authorities Cited
- Gwong v. Singletary, 683 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1996)
- Jennings v. State, 665 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Jawan King v. State, 665 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)