Byrnes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Byrnes v. State

619 So. 2d 522, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6702, 1993 WL 215591

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1133

StatusPublished

This text of 619 So. 2d 522 (Byrnes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Byrnes v. State, 619 So. 2d 522, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6702, 1993 WL 215591 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, Judge.

Appellant petitioned the circuit court for a writ of mandamus, arguing that he was improperly denied restoration of forfeited gain time. Appellant failed to demonstrate he had exhausted available administrative remedies, and we therefore affirm without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a new petition correcting these deficiencies. See Tunstall v. Folsom, 616 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

SMITH and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

WOLF, Judge.

Appellant petitioned the circuit court for a writ of mandamus, arguing that he was improperly denied restoration of forfeited gain time. Appellant failed to demonstrate he had exhausted available administrative remedies, and we therefore affirm without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a new petition correcting these deficiencies. See Tunstall v. Folsom, 616 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

SMITH and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

619 So. 2d 522, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6702, 1993 WL 215591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrnes-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack