CHRISTOPHER H. HAVLICEK, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Havlicek petitioned for certiorari review of a circuit court's denial of his habeas corpus petition, challenging the Department of Corrections' authority to forfeit gain time both through disciplinary action and following his criminal conviction for the same escape. The court denied the petition, holding that the administrative rule does not create a right requiring state attorney objection before disciplinary proceedings commence.
The Department of Corrections has authority to discipline inmates for their conduct in prison or custody regardless of whether the conduct also constitutes a prosecutable crime, and Rule 33-601.303(3) does not create a defendant's right to require state attorney objection before formal disciplinary proceedings commence.
[1] A court will not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal that were not raised in the lower court.
[2] A state agency has the authority to discipline an individual for conduct occurring while in custody, even if that conduct also constitutes a prosecutable crime.
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“Clearly, the Department has authority to discipline a defendant for his conduct in prison or while in custody, whether or not it also amounts to a prosecutable crime.”
Establishes that the Department's disciplinary authority exists independently of criminal prosecution authority.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHavlicek escaped from prison custody. The Department of Corrections initiated disciplinary proceedings and forfeited his gain time as a disciplinary s…
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 Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
Havlicek petitions this court for writ of certiorari to review the circuit court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He contends the Department of Corrections was without legal authority to forfeit gain time as a disciplinary punishment for his escape and then also to forfeit gain time following his conviction for the same escape. His argument is based on the failure of the State Attorney to object to the Department’s formal disciplinary action pursuant to Florida Administrative Code, Rule 33-601.303(3). We deny the petition.
In his petition, Havlicek raises for the first time claims that forfeiture of gain time as a result of the disciplinary proceeding and subsequent conviction for the same act (escape) violated his due process and double jeopardy rights. These issues may have some merit, but since they were not raised below we do not consider them in connection with this petition. See Fla. Mining and Materials Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 556 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). See also Scritchfield v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 648 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), rev. denied, 660 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1995).
The lower court ruled that Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-601.303(3),1 does not create a right in a defendant to have the state object before the Department proceeds to formal disciplinary action. Clearly, the Department has authority to discipline a defendant for his conduct in prison or while in custody, whether or not it also amounts to a prosecutable crime. The administrative rule is merely a mechanism to flag a defendant’s file. Having concluded that Havlicek failed to demonstrate the lower court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.
PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur. . Florida Administrative Code, Rule 33-601.303(3), provides:
Reporting Disciplinary Infractions:
(3) When it appears that laws of the state have been violated, the Office of the Inspector General shall be notified, who will in turn contact the State Attorney when deemed appropriate. If the State Attorney decides to prosecute, his office shall be consulted as to the suitability or disciplinary action being taken by the institution prior to the prosecution being concluded. (a) If the State Attorney has no objections, formal disciplinary action shall proceed.
(b) If the State Attorney objects to disciplinary action prior to prosecution, the file shall be flagged so that the investigation and disciplinary process can be completed once the criminal prosecution has been resolved.
(c)Failure to notify the state attorney prior to taking disciplinary action is not grounds for dismissal of the disciplinary report.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Mining & Materials Corp. & David L. Bracewell v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 556 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Scritchfield v. State, 648 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)