ROBERT S. NORMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
Norman challenges the denial of his habeas corpus petition alleging the Department of Corrections improperly forfeited gain time credits. The appellate court reversed, finding the petition stated a prima facie claim for relief and that habeas corpus was the appropriate remedy.
The court concluded that the allegations in the petition were sufficient to state a prima facie claim for relief and that habeas corpus was the appropriate remedy. The lower court should have issued an alternative writ directing the appellee to show cause why the petition should not be granted.
[1] A petition for emergency writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy when a petitioner alleges the Department of Corrections has improperly forfeited entitled gain ti…
[2] A lower court cannot rely on non-record material, such as an appendix to an appellee's brief, when considering an appeal.
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“We conclude that the allegations contained in the petition are sufficient to state a prima facie claim for relief, and therefore that the lower court should have issued an alternative writ directing appellee to show cause why appellant's petition should not be granted.”
Establishes the legal standard for habeas petitions and finds Norman met the prima facie claim threshold
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNorman filed a petition for emergency writ of habeas corpus claiming the Department of Corrections had improperly forfeited gain time to which he was …
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 Alternative Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
MICKLE, Judge.
Appellant challenges the denial of his petition for emergency writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that the Department of Corrections had improperly forfeited gain time to which he was entitled.
The lower court initially denied the petition on the basis that appellant had failed to allege that he had exhausted all available administrative remedies. Appellant then filed a motion for rehearing, attaching exhibits to demonstrate that he had in fact exhausted all administrative remedies.
The lower court denied the motion for rehearing, finding that (1) the essential allegations of the petition are that appellant is being held under an illegal sentence; (2) the petition does not allege that appellant has sought post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850; and (3) since appellant fails to allege or show that he has sought relief for the alleged illegal sentence, the remedy of habeas corpus is not appropriate as other relief is available.
We conclude that the allegations contained in the petition are sufficient to state a prima facie claim for relief, and therefore that the lower court should have issued an alternative writ directing appellee to show cause why-appellant’s petition should not be granted. Appended to its answer brief, appellee attaches a copy of an earlier petition for writ of mandamus purportedly filed by appellant in the supreme court, seeking restoration of his forfeited gain time. Also appended to the answer brief is a copy of an order denying the petition.
Appellee asserts that appellant should be barred from raising the identical claim for relief in this court.
However, no evidence of such a petition and order is contained in the instant record. In our consideration of this appeal, we cannot rely on non-record material contained in an appendix to a brief. Even if we were to take judicial notice of these items, we note that the supreme court’s order does not set forth the basis for the denial of relief. As such, we are unable to determine whether said denial was on the merits.
On the facts as alleged in the instant petition for emergency writ of habeas corpus, we conclude that habeas is the appropriate remedy should the allegations ultimately be found to be meritorious. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court issue an alternative writ and conduct such further proceedings as may prove necessary.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2004)…tered in such courts will be deemed a ruling on the merits. See Hobbs v. State, 689 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Obanion v. State, 496 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The conflict and lack of uniformity is clear. Further, in Norman v. Singletary, 698 So. 2d 614, 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the First District Court of Appeal concluded that this Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus in an order which did not set forth the basis for the denial did not bar the appellant from subsequently presenting…