JOHN M. FERENC, PETITIONER,
v.
WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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 court held that the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law by denying a habeas corpus petition based on a claim not raised in the petition or administratively exhausted.
[1] A circuit court does not depart from the essential requirements of law by rejecting a habeas corpus claim as factually unsupported.
[2] A claim not raised in the initial petition for writ of habeas corpus, nor addressed in administrative grievances, may be declined by the circuit court, especially when ra…
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 intelligencePetitioner sought habeas corpus relief, claiming the Department of Corrections impermissibly applied the 1983 gain-time statute for an offense committ…
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 Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
John M. Ferenc seeks certiorari review of an order denying his petition for -writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law when it rejected as factually unsupported Ferenc’s claim, founded on Avera v. Barton, 632 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), that the Department of Corrections impermissibly applied the 1983 gain-time statute in calculating and then forfeiting gain-time attributable to his sentence for an offense committed in 1977.
We decline to address petitioner’s claim that although the Department in fact did apply the 1977 statute in determining the amount of gain-time awardable to him, it erred by applying that gain-time in a lump sum rather than in progressive monthly increments, and thus forfeited more gain-time than should have been available at the time of disciplinary infractions he committed in the early years of his sentence. That claim was not raised in the petition below, nor was it addressed in the administrative grievances Ferenc appended to his petition. Instead, Ferenc raised this issue for the first time in his circuit court reply, and then only after conceding that the factual allegations supporting the claim articulated in his petition were not accurate. Because this issue was raised for the first time in petitioner’s reply and there was no showing that it had been exhausted through the administrative grievance process, the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law when it declined entertain this claim as a basis for granting relief. See Richardson v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 871 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is denied. This disposition is without prejudice to Ferenc exhausting available administrative remedies concerning his claim that his gain-time was improperly applied in a lump sum, and if still dissatisfied, to petitioning the circuit court for relief on that basis.
WOLF, BENTON, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Avera v. Barton, 632 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Richardson v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 871 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)