JUWAN T. EDWARD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Gain Time Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant seeks review of an order denying a motion to clarify sentence, claiming the Department of Corrections failed to properly calculate his gain time. He further claims the circuit court orally pronounced and entered a written sentence designating him as a habitual felony offender, but that his DOC classification lists him as a habitual violent felony offender. Any distinction between the legal sentence and the DOC records, if one exists, must be addressed through administrative procedures before seeking relief, pursuant to a writ of mandamus, in the circuit court. See Killings v. State, 567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). As such, the lower court’s order denying relief is affirmed albeit for reasons other than those relied on by the trial court.. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the appellant seeking administrative remedies with the DOC.
WARNER, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watkins v. State, 14 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…judice to refile because Watkins did not allege that it could be determined from the face of the record. However, Watkins’ claim that the DOC incorrectly interpreted his sentences is not cognizable in a motion for clarification. See Edward v. State, 966 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Furthermore, the claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Swinney v. State, 757 So. 2d 1218, 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Any complaint to the effect that the DOC has misinterpreted Watkins’ sentences must be add…
-
Rey v. State, 246 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…See Watkins v. State, 14 So. 3d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (explaining that a defendant’s “claim that the [Department of Corrections] incorrectly interpreted his sentences is not cognizable in a motion for clarification” (citing Edward v. State, 966 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007))); Dunbar v. State, 225 So. 3d 971, 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“As an inmate in the custody of the [Department of Corrections], Dunbar must fully exhaust his administrative remedies regarding gain time or credit owed within th…
Authorities Cited
- Forney v. State, 567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Killings v. State, 567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)