MARVIN LANCASTER, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Appellant Lancaster challenged a circuit court's dismissal of his mandamus petition on res judicata grounds. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that while the immediate prior order was technically a res judicata dismissal, the underlying merits of Lancaster's sentence calculation claim had been decided against him in prior proceedings.
The circuit court correctly dismissed the mandamus petition as res judicata because the underlying merits of Lancaster's sentence calculation claim had been decided against him in prior final orders, even though the immediately preceding dismissal was itself on res judicata grounds rather than on the merits.
[1] A prior ruling that an action is barred by res judicata does not preclude a subsequent court from considering the merits of the underlying claim if the prior ruling was n…
[2] A claim is barred by res judicata when the same claim was previously denied on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 merits of Appellant's claim were denied by the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County by final order in Lancaster v. McNeil, No. 2007 CA 002150 (Fla.2d Cir.Ct. Oct. 16, 2008)”
Establishes that the underlying merits had been decided in a prior final order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLancaster filed a mandamus petition challenging the Florida Department of Corrections' calculation of his tentative release date and application of ga…
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 Sentence Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the circuit court’s order which dismissed his petition for writ of mandamus as res judicata, on grounds that the previous order relied upon by the circuit court also ruled the matter res judi-cata and thus was not a ruling on the merits. See Miller v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 153 So.3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).
Appellant correctly asserts that the order dismissing the action in Lancaster v. Florida Department of Corrections, No. 2013 CA 001016 (Fla. 6th Cir.Ct. May 21, 2013), was not on the merits, but rather dismissed that action as res judicata. However, the orders relied upon by the Sixth Judicial Circuit in that case were rulings on the merits of-Appellant’s sentence structure and calculation claim. He reiterated the same claim in case number 2013 CA 001016 in the Sixth Circuit, and in the circuit court case underlying this appeal, Lancaster v. Fla. Department of Corrections, No. 2014 CA 001529 (Fla.2d Cir. Ct. Oct. 14, 2014). As discussed in the *967Sixth Circuit’s order, the merits of Appellant’s claim were denied by the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County by final order in Lancaster v. McNeil, No. 2007 CA 002150 (Fla.2d Cir.Ct. Oct. 16, 2008), certiorari denied, Lancaster v. McNeil, 10 So.3d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); In addition, and also discussed in the Sixth Circuit Court’s order, Appellant’s challenge to the Department of Corrections’ structure of his sentence based in part on gain time awards was denied on the merits.by the» District Court of the Northern District of Florida in Lancaster v. Tucker, No. 3:09-cv-333/MCR/MD, 2012 WL 399206 (N.D.Fla. Feb. 8, 2012).
The circuit court correctly found that Appellant’s challenge to the Florida Department of Corrections’ calculation of his tentative release date, including the correct application of gain time, was res judi-cata.1 Accordingly, the order dismissing the action is AFFIRMED.
WOLF, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.