BERNARD OWENS, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., AS SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus petition where inmate sought release based on claim that a sentence reduction order was illegal, holding that having jointly stipulated to the reduction and been released based on it, he cannot now challenge its legality, and any subsequent clerical error in crediting time served was properly corrected.
A defendant who jointly stipulates to a sentence reduction with the State and is released based on that reduction cannot subsequently challenge the reduction as illegal.
[1] A defendant who jointly stipulates to a sentence reduction with the prosecution and is released based on that reduction is estopped from subsequently challenging the redu…
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 intelligenceOn September 30, 1991, a circuit court reduced petitioner's nine-year sentence to two years pursuant to a joint motion by the defendant and the State,…
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 Clerical Error Correction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks his release from incarceration and claims he is being detained pursuant to an illegal order reducing the amount of time credited against his sentence. On September 30, 1991, the petitioner’s ni-neyear sentence was reduced to two years by a circuit court order that provided:
THIS 'CAUSE coming before the Court on the joint motion of the Defendant and the State of Florida and the Court being fully advised in the premises,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Defendant’s sentence be modified from nine (9) years in the Department of Corrections to two (2) years in the Department of corrections to be followed by ten (10) years of probation with all terms and conditions announced previously on March 18, 1991. Furthermore, it is hereby ordered that the Defendant be awarded credit for time served, to date, in the above styled case.
Pursuant to this order, not only was petitioner’s sentence reduced but he was also released from prison upon serving the two-year term. Having jointly stipulated with the State for a sentence reduction and having taken full advantage of that reduction upon his release, petitioner is in no position now to claim the reduction was illegal. Further, since the reduction has not been shown to be illegal, the later order mistakenly giving the petitioner credit for nine years served was obviously a clerical error which was properly corrected when discovered. Accordingly, we deny the petition for habeas corpus.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.