Caracciolo v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Caracciolo v. Singletary

720 So. 2d 1174, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15002, 1998 WL 828063

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 1998

DocketNo. 97-3200

StatusPublished

This text of 720 So. 2d 1174 (Caracciolo v. Singletary) 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

Caracciolo v. Singletary, 720 So. 2d 1174, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15002, 1998 WL 828063 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The dismissal of appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus is affirmed. However, while we agree that the petition was frivolous, the language which states that appellant is subject to forfeiture of gaintime pursuant to sections 944.279 and 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1996), is stricken. It is undisputed that the petition was filed well before the July 1, 1996, effective date of those statutes.

JOANOS, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The dismissal of appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus is affirmed. However, while we agree that the petition was frivolous, the language which states that appellant is subject to forfeiture of gaintime pursuant to sections 944.279 and 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1996), is stricken. It is undisputed that the petition was filed well before the July 1, 1996, effective date of those statutes.

JOANOS, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

720 So. 2d 1174, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15002, 1998 WL 828063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caracciolo-v-singletary-fladistctapp-1998.