PERCY GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
COVINGTON, Judge.
Percy Gonzalez challenges the order of the trial court denying his petition for writ of mandamus. In the petition, Gonzalez alleges that the Department of Corrections miscalculated his gain time and also miscalculated his release date upon his return to prison upon revocation of his conditional release. He petitions the trial court to recalculate his release date and gain time. We affirm the order of the trial court because Gonzalez did not first seek relief through the administrative remedies available within the Department. See Hagin v. State, 875 So. 2d 732, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1421 (Fla. 2d DCA June 11, 2004).
Affirmed.
SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reddell v. Reddell, 900 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…s one’s adversary on notice that a claim for fees and costs will be sought at the, conclusion of the case, and that such request is neither self-effectuating nor sufficient in itself to comply with the rule. Id. at 298-299. See also Molloy v. Flood, 884 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). But see Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 874 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Accordingly, we REVERSE the order awarding attorney’s fees. PLEUS and MONACO, JJ., concur. . We recognize .that the Florida Supreme Court recently adopted Fl…
-
Sharon v. Sharon, 915 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…nd litigation expenses would be determined at a subsequent hearing. This court has clearly held that rule 1.525 requires a separate written motion for attorneys’ fees to be filed within thirty days of the entry of the judgment. See Molloy v. Flood, 884 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (certifying conflict with Fisher v. John Carter & Assocs., Inc., 864 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). As in Molloy, the Wife in this case never filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, relying instead on her notice of hearing on the is…1 / 2
-
Parrot Cove Marina, LLC v. Duncan Seawall Dock & Boatlift, Inc., 978 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…2006), we held that [*816] “[e]ven if a trial court enters an order finding that a party is entitled to fees but reserving jurisdiction to determine the amount, the party must still serve a timely motion under rule 1.525.” See also Molloy v. Flood, 884 So. 2d 256, 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that service of a notice of hearing where the final judgment reserved jurisdiction as to attorney’s fees and costs did not comply with rule 1.525). Thus rule 1.525 is a bright-line rule that is strictly applied. Saia…
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
- Hagin v. State, 875 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)