WILFREDO BAEZ, 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 held that a claim for gain time must be pursued via mandamus, not a motion for post-conviction relief, and that relief under Heggs is limited to sentences that could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines.
Appellant challenged his sentence, arguing the trial court erred by using the 1995 sentencing guidelines for an offense committed in 1997. He also sou…
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 Heggs V. State cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wilfredo Baez appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, in which he challenged his sentence of 5 years. Appellant claims that the trial court erred in using the 1995 sentencing guidelines in sentencing him for an offense committed on January 25, 1997, pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), and that he is entitled to more gain time.
The State’s response provided a revised sentencing scoresheet, calculated under the 1994 sentencing guidelines, and showed a sentencing range between 3.7 and 6.2 years. In Heggs, the Supreme Court of Florida determined “that if a person’s sentence imposed under the 1995 guidelines could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines (without a departure), then that person shall not be entitled to relief....” Id. at 627.
As to. Appellant’s claim regarding his entitlement to gain time, we agree with the Second District that his remedy, having presented his claim administratively to the Department of Corrections, is to file a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court of the jurisdiction in which he is incarcerated to compel the award of gain time. See Heaton v. State, 775 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Cook v. State, 767 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Clements v. State, 761 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(affirming denial of post-conviction motion seeking additional gain time pursuant to Heggs without taking a position on the merits of the claim, but noting that although section 26 of chapter 95-184 affects the-gain-time statute, the major 1995 amendment to that statute,. section 944.275, occurred in chapter 95-294, which Heggs did not address); Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So. 2d 9, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
KLEIN, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vigil Birch v. State, 787 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ct illegal sentence. This affir-mance is without prejudice to defendant presenting his claim for gain time administratively to the Department of Corrections, and, if unsuccessful, thereafter filing a petition for writ of mandamus. See Baez v. State, 780 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); [*963] Allen v. State, 768 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Affirmed.…
-
Burns v. State, 825 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. This Court affirms without prejudice for appellant to file in the circuit court of the jurisdiction in which the appellant is incarcerated a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the award of gain time. See [*1014] Baez v. State, 780 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). AFFIRMED. FARMER, GROSS and HAZÓURI, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Hogan v. Ardc Corp., 637 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Clements v. State, 761 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Hickey v. Dunn & Corey, 761 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Cook v. State, 767 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Rogers v. State, 775 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)