ERNEST EUGENE GRANT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Ernest Eugene Grant challenged a Florida Department of Corrections rule denying statutory gain time to inmates in maximum security confinement. The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that Grant was lawfully detained and that habeas corpus is not the proper remedy for challenging prison administrative rules when the petitioner remains validly incarcerated.
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that Grant is being lawfully detained and that habeas corpus is designed to effect speedy release of persons illegally deprived of liberty, not to challenge prison administrative policies when the underlying detention is lawful.
“the writ of habeas corpus is designed for the purpose of effecting a speedy release of persons who are illegally deprived of their liberty or illegally detained from those who are entitled to their custody”
Establishes the limited scope of habeas corpus relief and explains why it cannot be used to challenge prison administrative rules when detention is lawful
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment commencing around April 10, 1964. The Florida Division of Corrections had adopted a rule depriving p…
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 Lawful Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Ernest Eugene Grant, appeals from an order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged that the Florida Division of Corrections had deprived him of his rights under Section 944.-27, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.,1 the Florida Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. The object of his petition was to question a rule passed by the Florida Division of Corrections depriving 'any person placed in maximum security of statutory gain time while so incarcerated.
The State has filed in this cause an instrument which reflects that appellant is confined by reason of a sentence commencing around April 10, 1964 for a term of five years. By simple arithmetic computation it is obvious that if this Court agreed with petitioner’s contentions as to entitlement of gain time, there still remains a considerable length of time for him to serve prior to his being eligible for discharge from the sentence.. It is axiomatic that the writ of habeas corpus is designed for the purpose of effecting a speedy release of persons who are illegally deprived of their liberty or illegally detained from those who are entitled to their custody. See 15 Fla. Jur., Habeas Corpus, Section 2. The un-controverted record in this cause reflects that this prisoner is being lawfully detained, so the trial judge’s order denying petition for writ of habeas corpus is
Affirmed.
RAWLS, Chief Judge, and STURGIS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holland v. State, 791 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…rison, 424 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). . See State ex rel. Hamilton v. Mayo, 123 Fla. 491, 167 So. 34 (1936); Skipper v. Schumacher, 118 Fla. 867, 160 So. 357 (1935); Edwards v. State, 705 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Grant v. State, 183 So. 2d 596, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); State v. Buchanan, 172 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).…