FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PETITIONER,
v.
JEWEL P. GOODMAN, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Department of Corrections challenged trial court orders that purported to determine an inmate's eligibility for gain time credits. The appellate court held that sentencing courts lack authority to award gain time to state prisoners, which is an exclusive function of the Department of Corrections, and therefore quashed the trial court's orders.
A sentencing court lacks authority to award gain time to state prisoners or to determine an inmate's release date based on gain time calculations. These matters fall exclusively within the province of the Department of Corrections. Therefore, the trial court's orders exceeded its authority and must be quashed.
[1] The Department of Corrections, not the sentencing court, has the exclusive authority to calculate an inmate's release date and award gain time.
[2] Trial court orders that usurp the Department of Corrections' statutory duty to calculate release dates and award gain time are subject to certiorari review.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the matter of awarding gain time to state prisoners is one within the exclusive province of the Department of Corrections”
Establishes that sentencing courts lack authority to determine gain time eligibility, which is exclusively the Department of Corrections' function
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJewel P. Goodman was sentenced in two Palm Beach County felony cases. The trial judge entered clarifying orders providing that Goodman would serve 71.…
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 Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This petition for writ of certiorari filed by the Florida Department of Corrections challenges two trial court orders finding Jewel P. Goodman eligible for certain amounts of gain time in two Palm Beach County prosecutions. The trial judge entered orders purporting to clarify Goodman’s sentences, providing that Goodman would serve 71.4 months in prison concurrently in the two felony cases, with credit for 139 days of time served. Then the judge added that only the first 60 months in each case must be served day for day under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, section 775.082(9), Florida Statutes, and that during the remaining 11.4 months, Goodman would be eligible for gain time. Attached to the orders in these two cases was a handwritten calculation of Goodman’s release date.
The Florida Department of Corrections wrote the judge a letter stating that Goodman would potentially serve more time incarcerated under the judge’s calculations of release date than its own calculations showed. It also stated that the Department of Corrections had the duty to calculate an inmate’s release date, rather than the sentencing court. The court did not act on this letter. The Department of Corrections now seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s orders. Certiorari lies to review them. See Fla. Dep’t of Corr. v. Rico, 975 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The Attorney General’s Office has filed a response in this court advising that it agrees with the petitioner Department of Corrections that the trial court’s orders in this case exceeded the authority of the sentencing court, as the matter of awarding gain time to state prisoners is one within the exclusive province of the Department of Corrections. See Fla. Dep’t of Corr. v. Martinez, 873 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Crosby v. Harvey, 861 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Therefore, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s two orders clarifying Goodman’s sentences in these eases. The cases are remanded for further proceedings in the circuit court consistent with this opinion.
Petition granted; order quashed and remanded.
WARNER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- James v. Crosby, Jr., 861 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Fla. Dep't OF Corr. v. Martinez, 873 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Butler v. State, 873 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Fla. Dep't OF Corr. v. RICO, 975 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)