ALFRED J. HUNT, 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 Rule 3.850 motion was not the proper procedural vehicle for seeking credit for time served, and affirmed the denial without prejudice.
Appellant sought credit for time served via a Rule 3.850 motion after his administrative grievance was denied. The trial court summarily denied this m…
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 Postconviction Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Alfred Hunt complains that the Department of Correction has not awarded him the credit for time served that he is entitled to under his plea agreement. He made this claim in an earlier postconviction motion, the denial of which we affirmed without prejudice to his pursuing the appropriate administrative remedy with the Department of Corrections. Hunt v. State, 775 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
After his administrative grievance was denied, Hunt filed a second motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The proper remedy would have been a petition for writ of mandamus filed in the circuit court where Hunt is incarcerated. See Burks v. State, 789 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The trial court summarily denied that motion, and Hunt brought this appeal.
We affirm the denial of the second motion without prejudice to Hunt to file a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court with territorial jurisdiction over the prison where he is incarcerated. We note that because the proper remedy was appellate in nature, the circuit court would have had authority under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040 to treat the motion as a petition for writ of mandamus and to transfer it to the appropriate circuit court.
POLEN, C.J., FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunt v. State, 922 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…rily denied. On appeal, this court affirmed the trial court orders denying relief in Hunt v. State, 775 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (affirming without prejudice to appellant’s right to pursue administrative remedies with DOC), and Hunt v. State, 798 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (affirming the denial of relief which followed the exhaustion of administrative remedies, without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek mandamus relief against DOC). In this third motion to enforce plea agreement, appellant main…
-
Gibson v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 895 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…tion because the trial court should have treated the petition as a petition for writ of mandamus and transferred the case to Leon County. See Perkins v. State, 766 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; see also Hunt v. State, 798 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The law governing review of the Commission’s decisions is arcane and' often confusing. Here, the petition was mislabeled and filed in the wrong venue. Where the correct remedy and venue are apparent to the trial judge, it serves…
Authorities Cited
- Burks v. State, 789 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Gaffney v. State, 775 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)