ERNESTO RIVERA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 the defendant is not entitled to additional gain time because the relevant statutory changes were not invalidated by Heggs.
[1] Chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, which was held unconstitutional in Heggs v. …
[2] Substantive changes to Florida's gain time laws, including the ten-day incentive gain time provision and the eighty-five percent rule, were enacted through Chapter 95-294…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant argued he was entitled to more gain time, claiming a statute invalidated by Heggs applied to his sentence. The Department of Corrections den…
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 Gain Time Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
On Rehearing Denied
PER CURIAM.
By motion for rehearing, Ernesto Rivera argues that he is not being granted the amount of gain time to which he is entitled, and points out that he had included with his postconviction motion documentation indicating that administrative relief had been denied. We conclude that defendant-appellant Rivera is not entitled to relief.
Defendant’s crime date was June 27, 1996, so defendant falls within the window period for Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). Defendant reasons that Heggs held chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, unconstitutional. Defendant relies on the fact that section 26 of chapter 95-184 contained certain provisions related to gain time. Defendant argues that with the invalidation of chapter 95-184, it follows that he is entitled to have his gain time calculated based on the version of section 944.275, Florida Statutes, which existed prior to 1995.
We reject this argument because the gain time provisions of chapter 95-184 were essentially editorial in nature and did not change the amount of gain time an inmate was entitled to. See id. § 26.
The 1995 substantive changes in the gain time laws were accomplished by a different enactment, the Stop Turning Out Prisoners Act, chapter 95-294, Laws of Florida. Chapter 95-294 provided that for offenses committed on or after October 1, 1995, the Department of Corrections may grant up to ten days per month of incentive gain time. Id. § 2. The same enactment also created the eighty-five percent rule, which requires that an inmate serve a minimum of eighty-five percent of the sentence imposed. The Heggs decision did not affect the validity of chapter 95-294. See West v. State, 789 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Sanchez v. State, 765 So. 2d 246, 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
The Department correctly advised the defendant that he is required to serve eighty-five percent of his' sentence. The Department also was correct in rejecting the defendant’s claim that he is entitled to receive twenty days of gain time per month.
Rehearing is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Comer v. Moore, 817 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2002)…mber of district court decisions. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 801 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (law imposing general 85% service provision was not invalidated by Heggs); Nelson v. Moore, 802 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (same); Rivera v. State, 790 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (same).…
-
Nelson v. Moore, 802 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…, Laws of Florida. Because the trial court correctly concluded that the Heggs decision holding these amendments to be unconstitutional does not affect the amount of gain time to which an inmate is entitled, we deny the petition. See Rivera v. State, 790 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). See also Clements v. State, 761 So. 2d 1245, n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Petition denied. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur. . Nelson filed a notice of appeal which this court previously converted t…
-
Brunache v. State, 901 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…. State, 876 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Marshall v. State, 796 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Although the question is not now before us, the defendant appears to have a mistaken impression regarding the gain time law. See Rivera v. State, 790 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Sanchez v. State, 765 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- West v. State, 789 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)