ANTHONY ADAMS
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Both basic and incentive gain-time credits are subject to forfeiture by the Department of Corrections pursuant to section 944.28(1), Florida Statutes, as they are granted as a matter of grace and not automatically retained.
[1] Both basic and incentive earned gain-time credits awarded to prisoners are subject to forfeiture by the Department of Corrections for unacceptable conduct, as such credit…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 Legislature specifically refers to all earned gain-time, whether basic or incentive, as a right—one that is granted as a matter of grace and is not automatically retained, but is subject to forfeiture.”
Williams v. Wasi, quoted in the court's affirmance
Anthony Adams appealed a circuit court decision concerning the forfeiture of gain-time credits. The case involved the interpretation of whether both b…
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 Incentive Gain Time cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 17, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-382 Lower Tribunal No. F90-45200
________________
Anthony Adams,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Shearon Cruz, Judge. Anthony Adams, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sheron Wells, Assistant Attorney General (Tallahassee), for appellee. Before SCALES, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Williams v. Wasi, 681 So. 2d 839, 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“We find no merit in his distinction between basic gain-time and incentive gain-time, holding that both may be subject to forfeiture by the DOC pursuant to section 944.28(1), Florida Statutes . . . Further, the Legislature specifically refers to all earned gain-time, whether basic or incentive, as a right—one that is granted as a matter of grace and is not automatically retained, but is subject to forfeiture.”); Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So. 2d 687, 689 (Fla. 1990) (noting a “basic gain-time award was subject to forfeiture for unacceptable conduct”); Singletary v. Jones, 681 So. 2d 836, 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“[I]nmates receive a lump sum award of all basic gain time to which they may be entitled throughout the full term of their sentences upon entering the prison system. This gain time is earned when so credited, and is thereafter subject to earned gain time forfeiture.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1990)
- Singletary v. Jones, 681 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Williams v. Wasi, 681 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)