JAMES RONALD SWINNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JAMES RONALD SWINNEY, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
757 So. 2d 1218
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2000)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
James Ronald Swinney appeals the dismissal of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm. Any complaint Swinney may have about how the Department of Corrections interprets his sentences must be addressed through administrative proceedings and, if necessary, by petition for writ of mandamus filed in the circuit court in the county in which he is incarcerated. See Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Killings v. State, 567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA1990).
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, AC.J., and FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 13 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ch the postconviction court properly rejected), the actual basis of the claim is the DOC’s interpretation of his sentence. A claim that the DOC has incorrectly interpreted a sentence is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Swinney v. State, 757 So. 2d 1218, 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Instead, any complaint that the DOC has misinterpreted Brown’s sentence must be addressed through administrative procedures and, if necessary, by a petition for writ of mandamus filed in Leon County. See id.; see also Stova…
-
Watkins v. State, 14 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…the DOC incorrectly interpreted his sentences is not cognizable in a motion for clarification. See Edward v. State, 966 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Furthermore, the claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Swinney v. State, 757 So. 2d 1218, 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Any complaint to the effect that the DOC has misinterpreted Watkins’ sentences must be addressed through administrative procedures and, if necessary, by a petition for writ of mandamus in Leon [*1130] County. Id.; Stovall v…
Authorities Cited
- Hogan v. Ardc Corp., 637 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Forney v. State, 567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Killings v. State, 567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)