Cridland v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cridland v. Singletary

605 So. 2d 170, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10003, 1992 WL 227866

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 17, 1992

DocketNo. 91-3454

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 605 So. 2d 170 (Cridland 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

Cridland v. Singletary, 605 So. 2d 170, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10003, 1992 WL 227866 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an inmate in the state correctional system, seeks review of a final order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. In that petition, appellant alleged that he had been improperly denied an appropriate amount of incentive gain time for the month of June 1989. Pursuant to an order to show cause issued by the trial court, appellee, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, filed a response to the petition. However, no evidentiary hearing was held. Instead, the trial court concluded from the petition and response thereto that appellant was not entitled to the relief requested.

In our opinion, the petition and response thereto do not conclusively establish that appellant is not entitled to the relief requested in the petition. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the order of the trial court denying the petition for a writ of mandamus; and to remand with directions that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the allegations of appellant’s petition.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. MINER, J., dissents without written opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an inmate in the state correctional system, seeks review of a final order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. In that petition, appellant alleged that he had been improperly denied an appropriate amount of incentive gain time for the month of June 1989. Pursuant to an order to show cause issued by the trial court, appellee, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, filed a response to the petition. However, no evidentiary hearing was held. Instead, the trial court concluded from the petition and response thereto that appellant was not entitled to the relief requested.

In our opinion, the petition and response thereto do not conclusively establish that appellant is not entitled to the relief requested in the petition. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the order of the trial court denying the petition for a writ of mandamus; and to remand with directions that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the allegations of appellant’s petition.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. MINER, J., dissents without written opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 So. 2d 170, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10003, 1992 WL 227866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cridland-v-singletary-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack