TERRY WEAVER, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
Terry Weaver appealed the dismissal of his mandamus petition seeking application of gain time credits to his sentences. The court affirmed the dismissal on res judicata grounds as to certain claims but remanded for consideration on the merits as to claims regarding incentive gain time earned since 2000 and basic gain time in other cases.
The court held that Weaver's arguments regarding lump-sum forfeiture of basic gain time in Case No. 81-614 were barred by res judicata, but his arguments regarding incentive gain time earned since 2000 in Cases 81-614 and 99-1004 were not barred and required consideration on the merits.
[1] Res judicata bars subsequent actions between parties to a previous judgment where there is identity in the thing sued for, the cause of action, the persons and parties to…
[2] A claim regarding the lump-sum forfeiture of basic gain time resulting from a parole revocation is barred by res judicata if previously litigated.
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“The doctrine of res judicata bars subsequent actions between parties to a previous judgment where (1) there is "identity [*806] in the thing sued for," (2) there is "identity in the cause of action," (3) there is "identity of the persons and parties to the actions," and (4) there is "identity of the quality or capacity of the person for or against whom the claim is made."”
Establishes the four-part test for res judicata that governs the dismissal of subsequent lawsuits on the same subject matter.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeaver sought mandamus relief compelling the Department of Corrections to apply basic gain time from uncompleted sentences and earned gain time since …
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 Earned Gain Time cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Terry Weaver, appeals the circuit court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of mandamus on the grounds of res judicata. The appellant’s petition sought to compel the Department of Corrections (Department) to apply the basic gain time from all of his uncompleted sentences and the earned gain time to which he is entitled since his return to custody to his current sentences.
The doctrine of res judicata bars subsequent actions between parties to a previous judgment where (1) there is “identity *806in the thing sued for,” (2) there is “identity in the cause of action,” (3) there is “identity of the persons and parties to the actions,” and (4) there is “identity of the quality or capacity of the person for or against whom the claim is made.” Campbell v. State, 906 So.2d 293, 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
We agree with the circuit court that the appellant’s argument regarding the lump-sum forfeiture of basic gain time in Case No. 81-614 (as a result of the revocation of the appellant’s parole) is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.1 Furthermore, the record demonstrates that the appellant is not entitled to any further relief with regard to his basic gain time in that case. However, it appears from the record that the appellant’s arguments as to the application of incentive gain time earned since his return to custody in 2000 in regard to counts II and III in Case No. 81-614 and as to the application of both incentive and basic gain time in Case No. 99-1004 are not barred by the doctrine of res judicata as those arguments have not been addressed by the circuit court in prior proceedings.
With regard to Case No. 99-1004 and counts II and III of Case No. 81-614, the record demonstrates that the appellant has earned a substantial amount of incentive gain time since his return to custody in 2000. Additionally, the record contains the Department’s response to the appellant’s Inmate Request informing him that he is entitled to basic gain time for Case No. 99-1004 because of the offense date. Thus, we remand for consideration on the merits as to the application of (1) incentive gain time and basic gain time earned since the appellant’s return to custody in 2000 in Case No. 99-1004, and (2) incentive gain time earned since the appellant’s return to custody in 2000 in counts II and III of Case No. 81-614.2 Accordingly, we affirm in part and remand in part for consideration on the merits.
AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED with instructions.
VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marc v. Miller, 153 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…re is (1) identity of the thing sued for, (2) identity in the cause of action, (3) identity of persons and parties to the actions, and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the person for or against whom the claim is made. See Weaver v. McNeil, 42 So. 3d 805, 805-06 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “[R]es judicata bars relitigation in a subsequent cause of action not only of claims raised,but also [of] claims that could have been raised.” Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004). However, “for a matter to h…
-
Weaver v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…PER CURIAM. This court in Weaver v. McNeil, 42 So. 3d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), affirmed in part an order of the circuit court but reversed and remanded in part for further proceedings. Weaver petitions this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to comply with mandate in case number 1D09-…
Authorities Cited
- Campbell v. State, 906 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Green v. State, 957 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)