JEFFREY ALLEN COLE, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of successive post-conviction motions but struck trial court's directive to forfeit gain time, holding that courts lack authority to order DOC to impose specific disciplinary sanctions.
A trial court may find a post-conviction motion frivolous or malicious and recommend disciplinary action to the Department of Corrections, but lacks authority to direct DOC to forfeit a specific amount of gain time as a sanction.
[1] A trial court may recommend that the Department of Corrections initiate disciplinary proceedings against a prisoner for filing frivolous or malicious post-conviction moti…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJeffrey Cole filed third and fourth successive rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motions, which the trial court summarily denied and directed DOC to f…
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
PALMER, J.
Jeffrey Cole (defendant) appeals the final order entered by the trial court summarily denying his third and fourth rule 3.850 motions for post-convic tion relief.1 Concluding that the trial court correctly denied these motions as being successive, we affirm the orders denying relief. However, the trial court also directed the Department of Corrections (DOC) to forfeit 30 days of the defendant’s gain time for the filing of his third motion, and 60 days of gain time for the filing of his fourth motion. Since the trial court is not authorized to direct DOC to forfeit a specific amount of gain time as a sanction, these directives must be stricken.
Section 944.279(1) of the Florida Statutes (2004) provides that disciplinary proceedings can be initiated by DOC against a prisoner who has filed a frivolous or malicious proceeding. The statute further states that the court, upon concluding that a prisoner has filed a frivolous or malicious pleading, shall issue a written finding and direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate DOC institution or facility for disciplinary action. In Hall v. State, 752 So. 2d 575 (Fla.2000), the supreme court held that, when a prisoner institutes a frivolous or malicious proceeding, the court which makes that finding can recommend a sanction, but lacks authority to direct the DOC to discipline a prisoner by forfeiting gain time or imposing some other sanction. As such, the portion of the trial court’s order which orders the forfeiture of gain time must be stricken.
Affirmed, as modified.
SHARP, W. and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850.