TOMMIE TYSON, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA 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.
The court reversed the trial court's denial of a mandamus petition challenging the Florida Department of Corrections' administrative application of jail-time credits, holding that mandamus was the appropriate remedy where the credit amount was not disputed but only its application was challenged.
Mandamus is the appropriate remedy when an inmate challenges only the administrative application of awarded jail-time credits, not the amount of credit itself.
[1] Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to challenge the administrative application of jail-time credits awarded by a sentencing court when the inmate does not dispute the amo…
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 intelligenceTommie Tyson, a state inmate, petitioned for a writ of mandamus against the Florida Department of Corrections, alleging it failed to properly apply cr…
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 Confession Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Tommie Tyson, a state inmate, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. In that petition, Tyson complained that appellee, the Florida Department of Corrections, had failed to properly apply credit for county jail time awarded against his various sentences. The trial court treated Tyson’s petition as a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and denied same as facially insufficient under the rule. Tyson argues in his initial brief that mandamus was the appropriate remedy in this circumstance, and that the trial court therefore erred in treating his petition as seeking relief under rule 3.850.
In apparent response to the initial brief, appellee moves to relinquish jurisdiction, correctly acknowledging that because Tyson did not contest the amount of credit awarded by the sentencing court, and instead challenged only the manner in which that credit was administratively applied, mandamus was the appropriate remedy. See, e.g., Riddell v. State, 534 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The department therefore suggests that it would be most expedient at this juncture to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court to entertain the merits of appellant’s claim. We agree that the trial court erred in denying relief on the grounds stated, but rather than relinquishing jurisdiction, we elect to treat appellee’s motion as a confession of error, and in accordance therewith, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.
MICKLE, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.