VERWAYNE ALEXANDER, 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 court held that a claim regarding retroactive application of administrative rules is not cognizable in a rule 3.850 postconviction relief proceeding.
Appellant sought postconviction relief alleging his plea was involuntary due to the retroactive application of an administrative rule that stopped his…
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 Incentive Gain Time cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Verwayne Alexander timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.
Essentially, Appellant alleged that his plea had been rendered involuntary by the retroactive application of Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-11.0065, pursuant to which the Department of Corrections in 1996 had stopped awarding him further incentive gain-time. Although Appellant’s claim has merit, see Gwong v. Singletary, 683 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1996), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 1018, 136 L.Ed.2d 894 (1997) (barring department from applying amendment to rule 33-11.0065 retroactively to inmates convicted of offenses that occurred before April 21, 1996, effective date of amendment, as impermissible ex post facto law), it is not a claim cognizable in a rule 3.850 proceeding.
Instead, Appellant should pursue his administrative remedies with the department to restore his incentive gain-time, and if he is unsuccessful after exhausting those remedies, 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 Washington v. State, 683 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Taylor, 738 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…n prison. See Gwong v. Singletary, 683 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1996). If Mr. Taylor still has a complaint about the Department revoking his incentive gain-time credits, that type of claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.850 proceeding. See Alexander v. State, 697 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). . See Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959).…
-
Werts v. State, 113 So. 3d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…es with the Florida Department of Corrections. If he is unsuccessful after exhausting those remedies, he may seek mandamus relief in the appropriate circuit court. See State v. Taylor, 738 So. 2d 988, 989 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Alexander v. State, 697 So. 2d 1017, 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Affirmed. VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Gwong v. Singletary, 683 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1996)
- Washington v. State, 683 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- McCONNAUGHY v. State, 684 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Howard v. State, 688 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)