CHARLIE MCCALL, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 5th DCA | 2007-08-31
No. 5D07-2247
PALMER, C.J., and TORPY, J., concur.
962 So. 2d 1067 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2007)

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.

Synopsis

McCall petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to award him 72 days of jail credit for time spent in Washington awaiting extradition to Florida. The Fifth District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that out-of-state jail credit is discretionary under Florida law and the trial court had no ministerial duty to award it.


Holding

Out-of-state jail credit is not mandated under section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes, and is instead discretionary. A sentencing court may award out-of-state credit if a defendant is held in a foreign jurisdiction solely on a Florida warrant, but has no ministerial duty to do so. Therefore, mandamus does not lie to compel such credit.


Headnotes

[1] Mandamus is available only to compel a lower tribunal to perform a ministerial duty or to exercise its discretion on a pending matter, not to instruct it on how to rule.

[2] A petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus must demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief and an indisputable legal duty on the part of the respondent to act.

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 intelligence

Key Quotes

“Mandamus lies only to compel a lower tribunal to perform a ministerial duty or to exercise its discretion on a pending matter, not to instruct it on how to rule on an issue.”

Establishes the legal standard for when mandamus is available

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

McCall was held in the State of Washington awaiting extradition to Florida. He filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) seekin…

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.


Opinion of the Court
ORFINGER, J.

ORFINGER, J.

Charles M. McCall petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to award him additional jail credit. McCall filed a previous motion seeking additional jail credit of 72 days pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) for the time that he was held in the State of Washington awaiting extradition to Florida.

The circuit court denied his rule 3.800(a) motion. Now, in his mandamus petition, McCall raises the same jail credit issue, and asserts that because the trial court denied the requested credit, he will be imprisoned 72 days past the expiration of his lawful sentence. Mandamus lies only to compel a lower tribunal to perform a ministerial duty or to exercise its discretion on a pending matter, not to instruct it on how to rule on an issue. See Kloski v. Matecumbe Marina, Inc., 598 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

Before this Court can issue a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show a clear legal right to the relief requested and an indisputable legal duty on the part of the respondent to act. See Bernard v. State, 911 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Out-of-state jail credit is not mandated under section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (2006). A sentencing court, in its discretion, may award out-of-state credit if a defendant is held in a foreign jurisdiction solely on a Florida warrant.

Consequently, the trial court did not have a ministerial duty to award out-of-state jail credit. See generally Garnett v. State, 957 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (stating that out-of-state jail credit for time spent on fugitive warrant is not credit defendant is entitled to as a matter of law, but instead is an issue that is within inherent discretion of sentencing court).

DENIED.

PALMER, C.J., and TORPY, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw