ERIC G. BEDFORD, 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.
Eric Bedford appealed the summary denial of his rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion. The court held that when a defendant disputes jail credit awarded by the Department of Corrections, the proper remedy is a mandamus petition, not a rule 3.850 motion, and reversed and remanded for redesignation of the motion accordingly.
The trial court should have redesignated Bedford's rule 3.850 motion as a petition for writ of mandamus. A petition for mandamus in the trial court is the appropriate remedy to compel the Department of Corrections to implement the jail credit awarded pursuant to a sentencing order.
[1] A trial court should treat a rule 3.850 motion as a petition for writ of mandamus when the motion seeks to compel the Department of Corrections to award jail credit as or…
[2] A petition for writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy for a criminal defendant to seek a trial court order directing the Department of Corrections to implement jail c…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A petition for mandamus in the trial court is the appropriate remedy to permit the trial court to order the Department to implement the credit awarded to a criminal defendant pursuant to a sentencing order.”
Establishes that mandamus, not rule 3.850 relief, is the proper remedy for jail credit disputes
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBedford entered into a plea agreement in three criminal prosecutions and received concurrent sentences of thirty-six months with 491 days of jail cred…
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 Motion To Enforce Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eric G. Bedford appeals an order from the Palm Beach County circuit court, summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse and remand.
Appellant entered into a negotiated plea agreement in three pending criminal prosecutions and was sentenced to concurrent sentences of thirty-six months imprisonment with jail credit of 491 days in each case. Upon his incarceration, Appellant learned that the Department of Corrections (“Department”) awarded him only 176 days credit on two sentences and ten days credit on the third. He pursued his administrative remedies with the Department but was unsuccessful. Appellant then filed a Motion to Enforce Plea Agreement in the trial court, which the court summarily denied. Appellant thereafter filed a rule 3.850 motion claiming that because the trial court summarily denied his motion, his guilty plea was now rendered involuntary.
Appellant should have filed a mandamus petition to have the Department honor the amount of jail credit awarded in each of his sentences. See Smith v. State, 682 So. 2d 147, 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(“A petition for mandamus in the trial court is the appropriate remedy to permit the trial court to order the Department to implement the credit awarded to a criminal defendant pursuant to a sentencing order.”), review dismissed, 689 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1997) and Department of Corrections v. Mattress, 686 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(holding that when pursuing a claim that the Department of Corrections improperly forfeited gain time, the defendant must first attempt to seek relief through administrative channels, and then, falling that, through a petition for writ of mandamus naming the Department as a respondent.) We hold that the trial court should have redesignated appellant’s motion for 3.850 relief as a petition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the circuit court treat Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion as a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Department to award 491 days of jail credit against each of his sentences.
WARNER, C.J., DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rood v. State, 790 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…tive remedies. If that proves unsuccessful, he may then file in the circuit court a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Department to credit him with the full amount of jail and prison time awarded by the trial court. Bedford v. State, 775 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Accordingly, the order denying appellant’s motion seeking postconviction relief is affirmed, without prejudice to appellant’s right to pursue his complaint against the Department of Corrections administratively. AFFIRMED. WE…
-
Burks v. State, 789 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…appellant to address the Department of Corrections concerning any issues concerning his gain time, and, if necessary, to file a petition for writ of mandamus filed in the circuit court in the county in which he is incarcerated. See Bedford v. State, 775 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(citing Department of Corrections v. Mattress, 686 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997))(holding that when pursuing a claim that the Department of Corrections improperly forfeited gain time, the defendant must first attempt to seek reli…
-
Smith v. State, 819 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…edit, we affirm without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek relief from the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), and if unsatisfied, to seek recourse by petition for writ of mandamus filed in the circuit court against the DOC. See Bedford v. State, 775 So. 2d 402, 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Clements v. State, 761 So. 2d 1245, 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We affirm the denial of the rest of appellant’s sentencing challenges in his motion and two letters except for the denial of his claim of scoresheet error. In p…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Smith v. State, 682 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)