Anthony Adams v. The State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 17, 2024
• Docket: 2023-0382
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

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.”).