WILLIAM MARTIN, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
An inmate sought certiorari review of a circuit court order denying his complaint for extraordinary relief and finding his action frivolous under Florida statute § 944.279, with accompanying forfeiture of gain time. The appellate court affirmed the denial and the frivolousness finding, but clarified that only the Department of Corrections—not the circuit court—has authority to impose gain time forfeitures through proper disciplinary proceedings.
The circuit court properly denied the petition and correctly found the action frivolous with adequate procedural safeguards. However, the circuit court lacks authority to directly order gain time forfeiture; only the Department of Corrections may impose such forfeitures through its own disciplinary proceeding as provided in § 944.28(2)(a).
[1] A circuit court may make a written finding that a prisoner's action is frivolous pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. …
[2] A circuit court may direct that a copy of an order finding an action frivolous be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution for disciplinary action.
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 affirm the circuit court's denial of the petition below, because it clearly appears that petitioner was afforded due process in the disciplinary proceeding instituted by the Department.”
Establishes the foundational basis for affirming the denial of relief—adequate due process protection.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Martin, an inmate at Union Correctional Institution, filed a complaint for extraordinary relief with the circuit court. The circuit court deni…
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 Petition For Extraordinary Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, an inmate of the Department of Corrections, seeks a writ of certiorari to review an order entered by the circuit court. In this order, the circuit judge denied petitioner’s complaint for extraordinary relief and made a finding “in accordance with section 944.279, Florida Statute (1996), that this action was frivolous and that the Plaintiff shall be subject to a forfeiture of earned and unearned gain time as a penalty for instituting this frivolous proceeding in this Court.” The judge directed that a certified copy of the order be provided to the superintendent of Union Correctional Institution “so that disciplinary action may be instituted against plaintiff, William Martin # 026396, in accordance with recently enacted amendments to section 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).” We affirm the circuit court’s denial of the petition below, because it clearly appears that petitioner was afforded due process in the disciplinary proceeding instituted by the Department.
Petitioner asks us to reverse the portion of the order finding that the action was frivolous for purposes of section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). We deny that relief. In the proceedings below, respondent Singletary asked for a determination of frivolousness, and spelled out for the court the standards for determining the issue. Petitioner responded with his contentions concerning frivolousness. Here, petitioner has failed to make a showing of error in the trial court’s finding. The circuit judge complied with section 944.279(1) by issuing a written finding and directing that a copy of the order be forwarded to the appropriate institution,
Although the order below contains language suggesting that it was the intention of the circuit judge to himself order the forfeiture of gain time, we agree with the view of the Second District that the court does “not have the authority to simply direct the Department of Corrections to forfeit a prisoner’s gain time after finding that the prisoner’s appeal is frivolous.” Mercade v. State, 698 So. 2d 1313, 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The circuit judge apparently recognized the requirements of section 944.28(2)(a), because he directed that his order be provided to the prison so that disciplinary action could be instituted against Mr. Martin. Accordingly, the order itself may not be construed as effectuating the loss of gain time. The proceeding to determine whether forfeiture of gain time is appropriate must be instituted by the Department pursuant to its rules as provided in section 944.279(1).
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, C. J., and KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saucer v. State, 736 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…urt.” As an initial matter, this court has expressed its agreement with the view of the Second District Court of Appeal that it is the role of the Department of Corrections, not the court, to order the forfeiture of gain-time. Martin v. Singletary, 713 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(relying upon Mercade v. State, 698 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). More importantly to resolution of respondent’s motion, we are persuaded that the provisions of section 944.28(2) are applicable to the instant proceeding. Saucer…
-
Broderick HAY v. Moore, 728 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…sturb the circuit court’s denial, concluding that the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in denying the petition. See generally Sheley v. [*807] Florida Parole Comm’n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1998); Martin v. Singletary, 713 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). We also deny the motion, styled a motion for relinquishment of jurisdiction, in which Mr. Hays asks leave to file a motion in circuit court alleging newly discovered evidence in the form of a letter from a pharmaceutical company…
-
Harvey v. State, 748 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…v. State, 736 So. 2d 10, 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(Webster, J., dissenting). I also agree with the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Mercade v. State, 698 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), and the First District in Martin v. Singletary, 713 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), that the decision whether to forfeit gain time lies with the Department of Corrections, not with the appellate court.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rafial A. Mercade v. State, 698 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)