DONALD L. HARRIS, 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 affirmed the trial court's second denial of Harris's motion to correct concurrent sentences and reverse the Department of Corrections's denial of incentive gain time, but without prejudice to his right to seek mandamus relief in the proper venue.
A motion to correct concurrent sentences and challenge a Department of Corrections administrative decision must be brought by mandamus petition in the proper venue with the Department named as a party.
[1] A motion challenging a Department of Corrections administrative decision regarding incentive gain time must be brought by mandamus petition in the Second Circuit Court fo…
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 intelligenceHarris sought correction of concurrent sentences in unrelated cases and reversal of the Department of Corrections's denial of his request for addition…
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.
This is an appeal from the second denial of appellant Harris’s Motion to Correct Written Sentence -with Mandamus Relief. In his motion, Harris sought both correction of the concurrent sentences he is serving in unrelated cases and reversal of the Department of Corrections’s denial of his request for additional incentive gain time. In the first appeal, this court reversed the trial court’s finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. See Harris v. State, 687 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). On remand from that decision, the trial court again denied the motion. We affirm.
Our affirmance is without prejudice to Harris’s right to seek mandamus relief from the administrative decision that denied the additional incentive gain time. The motion that Harris filed in the proceedings below was improper because it was filed in the wrong venue and did not make the Department a party to the proceedings. If Harris decides to pursue the matter, he must file a new petition for writ of -mandamus in the Second Circuit Court for Leon County, naming the Department of Corrections as respondent, and properly serve said petition on the Department. See Department of Corrections v. Mattress, 686 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
WARNER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corbblin Bush v. State, 945 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2006)…937 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (stating that venue lies in the county where the prisoner is housed); Burks v. State, 789 So. 2d 430, 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same); Smith v. State, 785 So. 2d 1237, 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same); but see Harris v. State, 713 So. 2d 1106, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (stating that venue lies in Leon County). And the decisions of the Fifth District Court of Appeal are mixed. See, e.g., Bush v. State, 886 So. 2d 339, 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (stating that venue lies in Leon County); but se…
-
Burgess v. Crosby, 870 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…0] gain time issue, but is not claiming the right to immediate release, a petition for writ of mandamus is filed in the county where the Department of Corrections is headquartered. Stovall v. Cooper, 860 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Harris v. State, 713 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Barber v. State, 661 So. 2d 355, 356 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Singletaiy v. Powell, 602 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Curry v. Wainwright, 419 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). See generally, Dickinson v. Florida Nat. Organizati…
-
Stovall v. Sergeant William Cooper, 860 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…h other districts on this issue. The First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Districts have stated that venue for a mandamus proceeding seeking an award of gain time is in the circuit court in Leon County under the home venue privilege. See Harris v. State, 713 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Barber v. State, 661 So. 2d 355, 356 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Singletary v. Powell, 602 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Curry v. Wainwright, 419 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). But see Grant v. State, 837 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 4th D…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't of Corr. v. Mattress, 686 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Harris v. State, 687 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Donald Hanft, M.D. v. Suzanne Church & John Church, 687 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)