PHILIP MEHL, PETITIONER,
v.
KENNETH S. TUCKER, SECRETARY, 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 denies the petition for writ of certiorari because the law changed during the pendency of the appeal and the petitioner may refile in the appropriate circuit.
Philip Mehl sought habeas corpus relief regarding jail credit calculation, but filed without exhausting administrative remedies. The circuit court dis…
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 Sua Sponte Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
Philip Mehl seeks review by certiorari of a circuit court order denying his petition *249for writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Mehl claims that the Department of Corrections has not properly calculated the jail credit that the sentencing court in Martin County awarded him. He filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit where he was then confined without exhausting all of his administrative remedies with the Department. The circuit court dismissed the petition as premature, which is consistent with Pope v. State, 898 So.2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (upholding trial court’s dismissal of habeas petition where inmate failed to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies).
During the pendency of this certiorari proceeding, the supreme court disapproved Pope, ruling that a court may not sua sponte dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the inmate failed to allege administrative exhaustion. Henry v. Santana, 62 So.3d 1122, 1129 (Fla.2011), aff'g Santana v. Henry, 12 So.3d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). During the pendency of this proceeding, Mr. Mehl was also transferred to another correctional facility outside both the circuit in which he filed his petition and the jurisdiction of this court.
Under these circumstances, we deny his petition for writ of certiorari. This denial does not prevent Mr. Mehl from filing another petition in the circuit where he is currently confined, which petition will be governed by the supreme court’s decision in Henry.
Petition denied.
KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spradley v. Parole Comm'n, 198 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…d exhausted administrative remedies nor alleged that none existed). However, this pleading deficiency does not warrant dismissal where the parties did not raise this issue. See Henry v. Santana, 62 So. 3d 1122, 1123, 1129 (Fla.2011); Mehl v. Tucker, 71 So. 3d 248, 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). In his unsuccessful motion for rehearing, Mr. Spradley advised the trial court that there were no available administrative remedies. improper Venue The' trial court also dismissed Mr. Spradley’s petition for improper venue…
Authorities Cited
- Runner O. Santana v. Henry, 12 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Henry v. Runner O. Santana, 62 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 2011)
- Immer v. City OF Miami, 898 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)