DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH MATTRESS, 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 Florida Department of Corrections appealed an order granting Kenneth Mattress's motion to correct an illegal sentence based on retroactive application of gain-time forfeiture provisions. The court reversed, holding that post-sentencing credit decisions, including gain-time awards, are administrative matters within the Department of Corrections' jurisdiction rather than cognizable trial court issues.
The court held that post-sentencing gain-time credit decisions are administrative matters within the Department of Corrections' jurisdiction and are not cognizable through a motion to correct illegal sentence. Claims for gain-time credit do not affect the legality of the sentence and must be pursued through administrative channels or by writ of mandamus, not trial court motions.
[1] A claim for post-sentence gain-time credit is a matter for the Department of Corrections, not the trial court, and is not cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sen…
[2] A request for presentence jail time credit affects the legality of a sentence and may be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“an award of credit after sentencing is a matter for DOC rather than the trial court as a request for such credit does not affect the legality of the sentence”
Establishes the foundational principle that post-sentencing credit is an administrative matter outside trial court jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMattress was convicted of drug offenses in 1989 and sentenced to concurrent four-year terms with probation. After serving less than three months, he w…
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 Presentence Jail Time Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Appellant, Department of Corrections, timely appeals an order granting appellee’s, Kenneth Mattress’, 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.
In case no. CR89-1082, appellee was charged in two counts with possession and delivery of cocaine. The state attorney nolle prossed the former charge and appellee entered a plea to the latter charge which offense was committed on January 31, 1989.
The trial court placed appellee on probation for two years with special conditions. In case no. CR89-6106, appellee entered a plea to the charge of possession of cocaine which offense was committed on June 25, 1989.
The trial court placed appellee on probation for two years with the special condition that he serve 364 days in jail with credit for 111 days served. Appellee thereafter entered a plea to violating his probation in both cases after which the trial court adjudicated him guilty of the offenses and sentenced him to two concurrent four-year terms of imprisonment and restored his probation with credit for 440 days served before the imposition of sentence.
On November 5,1991, after less than three months in jail, appellee was released from the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) because of prison overcrowding. On June 17, 1992, he was returned to DOC’s custody as a control release violator after having been sentenced in case no. CR91-12092 for a robbery which was committed on November 14, 1991. The Florida Parole Commission revoked appellee’s control release supervision effective November 14, 1991. Pursuant to section 944.28(1), Florida Statutes (1991), DOC forfeited 281 days basic gain-time and 42 days additional gain-time earned on appellee’s previous four-year terms of imprisonment up to the date of his controlled release on November 5,1991.
Appellee thereafter filed an amended 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief on the ground that appellant’s forfeiture of his gain-time through its retroactive application of section 944.28(1) was violative of the Ex Post Facto Clause because his offenses predated the effective date of section 944.28(1) of September 1, 1990. Construing appellee’s motion for post-conviction relief as a 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence, the trial court granted the motion on the ground that his offenses were committed before the effective date of section 944.28(1). Thus, the court ordered DOC to credit appellee with all previously earned gain-time forfeited by DOC.
We agree with appellant that appellee’s motion, whether construed as a 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief or as a 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence, is not cognizable because his entitlement to relief, if any, should be obtained through administrative channels and, if necessary, by filing a petition for writ of mandamus naming DOC as the respondent. See Adams v. Wainwright, 275 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1973); Smith v. State, 682 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Posey v. Kaplan, 660 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
The reason for this is that an award of credit after sentencing is a matter for DOC rather than the trial court as a request for such credit does not affect the legality of the sentence. See Bowles v. State, 647 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Henderson v. State, 632 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Reynolds v. State, 590 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
See also § 921.161(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); Bland v. State, 664 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Grimes v. State, 657 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
Conversely, a claim for presentence jail time credit is a matter for the trial court as a request for such credit affects the legality of the sentence. See Henderson; Reynolds. See also § 921.16i(l), Fla. Stat. (1995); Brown. That type of claim may be raised in a 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Reynolds. Because the requested credit does not affect the legality of appellee’s sentence, his motion does not state a basis upon which relief could be granted in this proceeding.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting appellee’s 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence is reversed.
REVERSED.
GRIFFIN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Bedford v. State, 775 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…e appropriate remedy to permit the trial court to order the Department to implement the credit awarded to a criminal defendant pursuant to a sentencing order.”), review dismissed, 689 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1997) and Department of Corrections v. Mattress, 686 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(holding that when pursuing a claim that the Department of Corrections improperly forfeited gain time, the defendant must first attempt to seek relief through administrative channels, and then, falling that, through a petition for…
-
Burks v. State, 789 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ng his gain time, and, if necessary, to file a petition for writ of mandamus filed in the circuit court in the county in which he is incarcerated. See Bedford v. State, 775 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(citing Department of Corrections v. Mattress, 686 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997))(holding that when pursuing a claim that the Department of Corrections improperly forfeited gain time, the defendant must first attempt to seek relief through administrative channels, and then, failing that, through a petition fo…
-
Harris v. State, 713 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…matter, he must file a new petition for writ of -mandamus in the Second Circuit Court for Leon County, naming the Department of Corrections as respondent, and properly serve said petition on the Department. See Department of Corrections v. Mattress, 686 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). WARNER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Adams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 275 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1973)
- Reynolds v. State, 590 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Bowles v. State, 647 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Henderson v. State, 632 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Grimes v. State, 657 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Smith v. State, 682 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Ned Bland v. State, 664 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Posey v. The Honorable Stanton S. Kaplan, 660 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)