RICHARD PORTER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Porter sought habeas corpus relief arguing that time served on parole should count toward his 20-year sentence. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed that under Florida law, parole time cannot be credited toward a criminal sentence, rejecting Porter's argument that federal courts apply a different rule.
Time spent on parole cannot be credited toward a criminal sentence under Florida law. The applicable Florida statute provides that no part of time spent on parole shall diminish the time of a sentence, and this rule has been consistently applied by the Florida Supreme Court.
“no part of the time a convicted criminal may have been on parole shall in any manner diminish the time of his sentence”
Statement of the controlling Florida statutory rule that parole time cannot be credited toward a sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePorter was convicted of a criminal offense and sentenced to 20 years in the Florida State Prison on October 1, 1945. He has served 10 years in prison …
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 Computation cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the contention that he is being illegally restrained of his liberty and incarcerated in the Florida State Correctional Institution at Avon Park.
Petitioner was found guilty of a criminal offense and sentenced to serve a term of 20 years in the Florida State Prison on October 1, 1945. Since the imposition of his sentence, petitioner was paroled on three separate occasions by the Parole Commission. Since the date of his sentence, he has served 10 years in prison, and has been free on parole for a total of 12 years and 13 days, his last parole being revoked on October 31, 1966.
Petitioner’s sole contention is that the time he was at liberty on parole should be counted along with the time he has spent in prison in determining whether he has completed his 20 year sentence of imprisonment. This contention cannot be sustained.
The applicable statute in effect in this state provides that no part of the time a convicted criminal may have been on parole shall in any manner diminish the time of *829his sentence.1 This same contention was raised in the case of Deese v. Cochran,2 and in rejecting such contention the Supreme Court said:
“In view of the provisions of the applicable statute the petitioner, although entitled to a credit of two years, six months and 16 days, the time actually served, could not be credited with the further time of one year, nine months and four days, the period he was out on parole, so that, as he contends, the first sentence would be satisfied and he would have been entitled to a credit of three months and 20 days on the Orange County sentence, nor can there be added to these periods the time served since revocation of parole, to work a service of both sentences.”
Of the same effect are the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo v. Lukers,3 and Sheppard v. Mayo.4
Petitioner concedes that the law of Florida will not support his position, but contends that the rule adopted by the federal courts of this country is to the contrary and should be controlling in his case. In this regard petitioner is also in error, having placed unwarranted reliance in the dissenting opinion filed in the decision cited below.5
For the reasons hereinabove stated, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ezekiel Bates v. Rivers, 323 F.2d 311 (D.C. Cir. 1963)
- Deese v. Cochran, 139 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1962)
- Hoshor v. Heinze, 340 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1951)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., 340 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1951)