ROBERT EARL REEVES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Robert Earl Reeves appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming he was not given proper credit for time served. The appellate court affirmed, holding that credits from earlier cases were irrelevant to the sentence in the case at issue, and that Reeves must exhaust administrative remedies and pursue remedies in the proper jurisdiction.
The court affirmed the denial, holding that credits from earlier cases are irrelevant to the computation of the sentence in case 92-33574 because that sentence ran consecutive to the other sentences. The court held that Reeves must first exhaust administrative remedies regarding credits in the other cases, and may then seek appropriate relief in the correct jurisdiction.
[1] Credit for time served on prior, completed sentences is irrelevant to the computation of a subsequent consecutive sentence.
[2] A defendant seeking credit for time served or gain time on prior sentences must first exhaust administrative remedies.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Credit for time served in these earlier cases (case numbers: 89-39944, 90-11502, 90-11504, and 90-40526), however, is irrelevant in the computation of the defendant's sentence in case number 92-33574, as the sentence in 92-33574 was ordered to run consecutive to the sentences imposed in case numbers 90-11502, 90-11504, and 90-40526”
Establishes that credits from consecutive sentences are irrelevant to the sentence being challenged
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReeves was sentenced in case number 92-33574, with that sentence ordered to run consecutive to sentences in three other cases (90-11502, 90-11504, and…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, J.
The defendant, Robert Earl Reeves, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his amended motion to correct an illegal sentence in case number 92-33574, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
The defendant claims that he did not receive all of the credit for time served, taking into consideration time he served in the county jail prior to sentencing, time he served in state prison, and gain time. The defendant’s argument, however, rests upon credit he allegedly earned on cases pre-dating his conviction in case number 92-33574. Credit for time served in these earlier cases (case numbers: 89-39944, 90-11502, 90-11504, and 90-40526), however, is irrelevant in the computation of the defendant’s sentence in case number 92-33574, as the sentence in 92-33574 was ordered to run consecutive to the sentences imposed in case numbers 90-11502, 90-11504, and 90-40526, and the defendant had already completed his sentence in case number 89-39944 when the sentence was imposed in case number 92-33574.
If the defendant believes that he was not awarded the correct credit for time served, gain time, or provisional release credit in case numbers 90-11502, 90-11504, and 90-40526, he must first exhaust his administrative remedies. See Milne v. State, 807 So. 2d 725, 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Smith v. State, 706 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). If the defendant is unsuccessful, he may file a motion in the circuit court of Miami-Dade County pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 to address his entitlement to any additional credit for time served in the county jail, and/or seek relief in the circuit court of Leon County by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus to address his entitlement to any additional gain time or provisional release credits. In Bush v. State, 945 So. 2d 1207, 1215 (Fla.2006), the Florida Supreme Court held:
(1) the proper remedy for a prisoner to pursue in challenging a sentence-reducing credit determination by the Department, where the prisoner has exhausted administrative remedies and is not alleging entitlement to immediate release, continues to be a mandamus petition filed in circuit court; (2) the proper venue for a prisoner’s challenge to a sentence-reducing credit determination by the Department, where the prisoner has exhausted administrative remedies and is not alleging entitlement to immediate release, continues to be in circuit court in Leon County, where the Department is located....
As the defendant’s motion was filed under case number 92-33574 only, he failed to allege an improper calculation of the time served in that case, and he has failed to allege or to provide any documentation that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to the defendant to seek the appropriate remedy in the correct ju risdiction after he has exhausted his administrative remedies.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dunbar v. State, 225 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…administrative remedies regarding gain time or credit owed within the DOC before he is entitled to pursue judicial remedies. Bush v. State, 945 So. 2d 1207, 1210 (Fla. 2006); Wilson v. State, 9 So. 3d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (table); Reeves v. State, 987 So. 2d 779, 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Patterson v. State, 784 So. 2d 451, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (mem.). If after exhausting his administrative remedies, Dunbar is not afforded the relief sought, he may file a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the DO…
-
Leonel LaFERTE-Diaz v. Dep't OF Corr., 187 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…remedies, we dismiss his petition without prejudice. [*909] The law is well established that a petitioner typically must exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing a petition for writ of mandamus. Bush, 945 So. 2d at 1210; Reeves v. State, 987 So. 2d 779, 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Patterson v. State, 784 So. 2d 451, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (mem.). If after exhausting his administrative remedies, Diaz is not afforded the relief sought, he may file a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Depa…
-
Osborne v. Tucker, 80 So. 3d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…999). Furthermore, the Department of Corrections correctly concedes that the proper venue for Osborne’s mandamus petition, challenging the DOC’s final agency action, was in the Second Circuit Court in and for Leon County. See, e.g., Reeves v. State, 987 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Thus, after redesignating Osborne’s petition as one seeking mandamus, the trial court should have transferred the petition to the Leon County Circuit Court. Accordingly, the order dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corp…
Authorities Cited
- Corbblin Bush v. State, 945 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2006)
- Ross v. State, 807 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Milne v. State, 807 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Smith v. State, 706 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)