PHILLIP BLACK, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT

Fla. 1st DCA | 2000-10-06
No. 1D99-3667
BARFIELD, C.J., and DAVIS, J., CONCUR.
768 So. 2d 1236 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2000) Negative Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

In a certiorari proceeding reviewing a habeas corpus denial, the Florida First District Court of Appeal upheld the Department of Corrections' cancellation of Phillip Black's retroactive administrative gain time and provisional credits totaling 440 days, finding no Ex Post Facto Clause violation because the prison population never reached the 98% capacity threshold required for such credits under the law in effect when Black committed his crimes in 1983-1985.


Holding

The court held that Black's right to overcrowding credits was never triggered because prison population did not exceed the 98% threshold of lawful capacity during the time period for which the Department awarded him the credits. Therefore, Black had no entitlement to restoration of those credits under the Ex Post Facto Clause, and the Department's cancellation did not violate the Constitution.


Headnotes

[1] An ex post facto violation occurs when a law retroactively disadvantages an inmate by increasing punishment.

[2] For ex post facto analysis regarding gain time and provisional credits, the threshold prison capacity percentage must be determined based on the law in effect at the time…

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

Key Quotes

“Because petitioner could only have contemplated receiving overcrowding credits if prison capacity had exceeded the threshold of 98%, he has no entitlement to the restoration of those credits under the Ex Post Facto Clause.”

Establishes the holding that Black never became entitled to the credits because the triggering condition (98% capacity) was never met, thus defeating the ex post facto claim.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Phillip Black was convicted of crimes committed between June 15, 1983, and June 30, 1985. The Department of Corrections retroactively awarded him 440 …

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.


Opinion of the Court
KAHN, J.

KAHN, J.

The opinion issued August 16, 2000, is hereby withdrawn and this revised opinion shall be substituted therefore. In this certiorari proceeding, we review the trial court’s denial of a petition for habeas corpus. Petitioner Phillip Black claims that the Department of Corrections (Department) violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution when, pursuant to section 944.278, Florida Statutes (1999)1, it canceled petitioner’s retroactive award of administrative gain time and provisional credits totaling 440 days. The Department determined that because petitioner committed the crimes for which he was retroactively awarded the 440 days between June 15, 1983, and June 30, 1985, petitioner did not become entitled to administrative gain time and provisional credits unless and until prison population reached 98% of maximum capacity. The Department further determined that during the period of time for which petitioner received administrative gain time and provisional credits, February 1987 to January 1991, prison population did not reach the 98% maximum capacity threshold. Therefore, the Department concluded, and the circuit court agreed, that no ex post facto violation occurred as a result of cancellation of the retroactively awarded credits and gain time. We deny certiorari.

In Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held that a 1992 Florida statute that retroactively canceled all provisional credits awarded to inmates convicted of murder or attempted murder violated the Ex Post Facto Clause2 because it acted retrospectively to disadvantage certain inmates by increasing punishment. The Lynce court suggested, however, that some instances will arise where an offender is not entitled to the restoration of credits:

Between 1988 and 1992, the provisional credits were authorized when the prison reached 97.5% capacity rather than 98% capacity as under the emergency gain-time statute. If the prison population did not exceed 98% capacity between 1988 and 1992, and if petitioner received provisional credits during those years, there is force to the argument that the cancellation of that portion of the 1,860-day total did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Id. at 449,117 S.Ct. 891.

In order to determine whether an inmate is entitled to restoration of can celed gain time or provisional credits, the Department must use the threshold percentage of prison capacity as it existed at the time the inmate committed the crime. See Meola v. Department of Corrections, 732 So. 2d 1029, 1038 (Fla.1998). When Black committed his crimes in 1983 and 1984, Florida had only an overcrowding emergency gain time statute.3 See § 944.598, Fla. Stat. (1983). The applicable overcrowding statute provided for credit when prison population exceeded 98% of lawful capacity. The statute defined “lawful capacity” as “the total capacity of all institutions and facilities in the prison system as determined either by the Legislature or by the courts.” § 944.598(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (1983). The supreme court has recognized that as of 1983, neither the legislature nor any court had determined an exact definition for “total capacity.” See Gomez v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 499, 507 (Fla.1998).

Effective July 1, 1985, however, the definition of “lawful capacity” was set at 133% of total design capacity pursuant to the Costello4 settlement agreement approved by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. See Gomez, 733 So. 2d at 507. Effective June 10, 1995, the definition was changed to 150% of total design capacity. See id. While recognizing that the definition of “lawful capacity” between June 16, 1983, and June 30, 1985, is different from the two definitions above, the Gomez court declined to interpret that definition as the claims before the court did not implicate the earlier dates. See id. at 507-08.

Now the Department points out that from the Costello settlement in 1980 until July 1, 1985, the Department was permitted by the settlement, as adopted by the court, to operate at maximum capacity of the prison system. Thus, the Department posits that “lawful capacity” before July 1, 1985, means the maximum capacity of all institutions in the prison system.

Both the Second and Third District Courts of Appeal have reviewed ex post facto claims of inmates who committed crimes between June 16, 1983, and June 30, 1985. See Sanford v. State, 739 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Grant v. Singletary, 730 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In those cases, however, the Department did not present the relevant data to allow a determination of whether prison capacity exceeded 98% of lawful capacity. See Sanford, 739 So. 2d at 1209; Grant, 730 So. 2d at 806. Accordingly, the appeals courts remanded the cases back to the trial courts to make factual findings. See Sanford, 739 So. 2d at 1209; Grant, 730 So. 2d at 806. Both courts determined that lawful capacity for the relevant time would be viewed as “maximum capacity” pursuant to Costello. See Sanford, 739 So. 2d at 1209 n. 1; Grant, 730 So. 2d at 805.

Here, in contrast, the Department did provide the trial court with charts documenting the prison population during the relevant time period and tracking whether such population exceeded the threshold of 98% of maximum capacity. The court below relied on the charts to find that prison population did not exceed the 98% threshold of lawful capacity during the time period for which the Department awarded Petitioner administrative gain time and provisional credits. We see no reason not to adopt the Department’s position that between 1980 and July 1, 1985, “lawful capacity” meant the maximum capacity of the prison system as detailed in its charts. See Leggett v. Moore, 765 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Accordingly, we hold that petitioner’s right to overcrowding credits available in 1983 was never triggered. Because petitioner could only have contemplated receiving overcrowding credits if prison capacity had exceeded the threshold of 98%, he has no entitlement to the restoration of those credits under the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Meola, 782 So. 2d at 1033.

Petitioner’s argument that additional crimes he committed in 1988 while in prison qualify him for consideration under the 133% of total design capacity definition of lawful capacity is without merit. Petitioner had not yet begun to serve his sentences for those crimes during the time period for which the Department retroactively awarded administrative gain time and provisional credits. Accordingly, we find that the Department’s cancellation of petitioner’s gain time and credits did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

The petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.

BARFIELD, C.J., and DAVIS, J., CONCUR. . Section 944.278 provides in part that "[a]ll awards of administrative gain-time under s. 944.276 [repealed 1988] and provisional credits under s. 944.277 [repealed 1993] are hereby canceled for all inmates serving a sentence or combined sentences in the custody of the department.... Release dates of all inmates with 1 or more days of such awards shall be extended by the length of time equal to the number of days of administrative gain-time and provisional credits which were canceled.” (footnotes omitted).

. Article I, section 10, of the United States Constitution provides that ”[n]o state shall .... pass any ... ex post facto Law.” The Lynce court found that case to fall under the category of ex post facto laws that encompasses ”[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.” Lynce, 519 U.S. at 441 n. 13, 117 S.Ct. 891 (quoting Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798)).

. For the purposes of ex post facto analysis, the emergency gain time, administrative gain time, and provisional credits statutes are treated interchangeably. See Lynce, 519 U.S. at 449, 117 S.Ct. 891; Meola, 732 So. 2d at 1032.

. Costello v. Wainwright, 489 F.Supp. 1100, 1102 (M.D.Fla.1980).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Winkler v. Moore, 831 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2002)
    …e nor any court had done so, and therefore we decline to accept that definition. The Department's definition was apparently accepted by two district courts, however, see e.g., Leggett v. Moore 765 So. 2d 258, 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Black v. Moore, 768 So. 2d 1236, 1236-38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Grant v. Singletary, 730 So. 2d 805, 805-06 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), and, therefore, to the extent those district court decisions conflict with this opinion, they are disapproved. . This Court stated in Meóla: [Tjhis Court…
  • McCONNELL v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
    …ng ‘total design capacity[,]’ ... and that the calculations the DOC provided in Gomez ... are not accurate.” Petitioner has alleged no basis for relitigating this question, however, nor offered any reason to revisit our conclusion in Black v. Moore, 768 So. 2d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), that Gomez resolved the methodology question for periods beginning on and after July 1, 1985. See also Hernandez v. Moore, 773 So. 2d 1287, 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. WOLF and…
  • Staten v. State, 803 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
    …PER CURIAM. DENIED. See Black v. Moore, 768 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). ERVIN, BENTON and POLSTON, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw