DERICK E. HATCHETT, 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.
Derick Hatchett appealed the denial of his Rule 3.800 motion seeking relief based on Heggs v. State regarding sentencing guidelines. The court affirmed the denial, holding that while Hatchett fell within the Heggs window period, he failed to satisfy the requirement that his sentence be a departure from the 1994 guidelines, and his gain time concerns must be addressed through administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections.
Hatchett is not entitled to Heggs relief because while his crime falls within the required window period, his sentence would not be a departure from the 1994 guidelines—a necessary requirement under the two-pronged Heggs test. Additionally, any concerns regarding gain time reduction must be pursued through administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections, followed by mandamus petition in circuit court if necessary.
[1] To be entitled to relief under Heggs v. …
[2] The Heggs window period for relief runs from October 1, 1995, to May 24, 1997.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“To be entitled to relief pursuant to Heggs, Hatchett must allege that his crime fell within the window period covered by Heggs and that his sentence could not have been imposed without a departure from the 1994 guidelines.”
States the two-pronged test for Heggs relief that the appellant must satisfy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDerick Hatchett was sentenced and filed a Rule 3.800 motion seeking relief. His crime fell within the Heggs window period (October 1, 1995 to May 24, …
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 1994 Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
Derick E. Hatchett appeals the denial of his Rule 3.800 motion. He alleges that he is entitled to relief pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). He also alleges the sentence affected his gain time. We affirm.
To be entitled to relief pursuant to Heggs, Hatchett must allege that his crime fell within the window period covered by Heggs and that his sentence could not have been imposed without a departure from the 1994 guidelines. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Heggs window period runs from 1 October 1995 to 24 May 1997. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000). Hatchett must meet both prongs of this two-pronged test to be entitled to relief. There is no doubt that Hatchett falls within the window period; however, he concedes that his sentence would not be a departure from the 1994 guidelines. He states that “his sentence is within the legally permitted range of the guidelines enforced before the effective date of Chapter 95-184.” Therefore, he is not entitled to relief.
Hatchett also argues that his sentencing affected his entitlement to gain time. He argues that because Chapter 95-184 amended section 944.275, Florida Statutes, it reduced the incentive gain time for which he is eligible. Although Hatchett may be correct, his proper remedy is with the Department of Corrections. He must pursue and exhaust his administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections. If he were unsuccessful, he would then need to petition the circuit court for a writ of mandamus. See Moreland v. State, 700 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (rather than move to correct an illegal sentence, an appropriate course of action is to request credit from DOC, and, after exhausting administrative remedies, to file petition for writ of mandamus against DOC); Green v. State, 698 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (error in calculating credit for unforfeited gain time is DOC’s fault, so proper remedy is administrative complaint, then mandamus in trial court); McConnaughy v. State, 684 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (prisoner claiming DOC had erroneously applied new regulation to deny gain time award must first pursue this administrative remedies and if necessary file a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court).
For these reasons, we affirm the order entered by the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mohamed Ali Ghanem v. State, 929 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…to a continuing criminal enterprise); Gross v. State, 728 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that convictions for grand theft charges, which were the predicate offenses for RICO conviction, did not violate double jeopardy); Hatchett v. State, 766 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (stating that where appellant’s claim is that use of wrong guidelines affected his gain time, appellant must first exhaust his administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections). WARNER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Green v. State, 698 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Moreland v. State, 700 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- McCONNAUGHY v. State, 684 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)