Brown v. Moore

800 So. 2d 329, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16257, 2001 WL 1448558
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 16, 2001·No. No. 1D00-4621·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BARFIELD, J.

Petitioner has not demonstrated that the lower tribunal departed from the essential requirements of law in denying his petition for writ of mandamus seeking gain time credit under the statute in effect at the time he began the conspiracy of which he was convicted, instead of under the statute in effect at the time the conspiracy ended. A crime spanning a change in the gain time statute invokes the provisions of the latter statute. See, Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). See also, Leyvas v. United States, 371 F.2d 714 (9th Cir.1967). The law deems an offender who persists in the commission of a continuing crime, in the face of a change in a statute affecting the punishment or gain time with regard to that crime, to have fully anticipated the application of the latter law.

[330] The petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.

VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brown v. Moore, 800 So. 2d 329, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16257, 2001 WL 1448558 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

800 So. 2d 329 (Brown v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Earle v. McDonough
950 So. 2d 483 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)