Cridland v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cridland v. Singletary

695 So. 2d 794, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4871

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1997

DocketNo. 96-217

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 695 So. 2d 794 (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, 695 So. 2d 794, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4871 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, Judge.

The appellant challenges the denial of a petition by which he alternatively sought a writ of mandamus or habeas corpus. While imprisoned the appellant was awarded administrative gain-time and provisional credits, which led to his release. However, the Department of Corrections (the department) subsequently determined that section 944.277(l)(i), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992), should have been applied so as to disqualify the appellant from receiving provisional credits. [795]*795The appellant was thereafter returned to prison, whereupon all provisional credits and administrative gain-time were apparently cancelled pursuant to section 944.277(l)(i), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992), and section 944.278, Fla. Stat. (1995). The appellant claims that this is an unconstitutional ex post facto application of these statutes.

In responding to this claim the department relied on Attorney General Opinion 92-96 and eases such as Griffin v. Singletary, 638 So.2d 500 (Fla.1994), for the proposition that these early release mechanisms may be legislatively abolished without violating ex post facto protections. However, after the lower court denied relief the United States Supreme Court addressed a similar claim in Lynce v. Mathis, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997), and repudiated the broad import of these authorities. The appealed order is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for reconsideration or further proceedings in light of Lynce.

WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

ALLEN, Judge.

The appellant challenges the denial of a petition by which he alternatively sought a writ of mandamus or habeas corpus. While imprisoned the appellant was awarded administrative gain-time and provisional credits, which led to his release. However, the Department of Corrections (the department) subsequently determined that section 944.277(l)(i), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992), should have been applied so as to disqualify the appellant from receiving provisional credits. [795]*795The appellant was thereafter returned to prison, whereupon all provisional credits and administrative gain-time were apparently cancelled pursuant to section 944.277(l)(i), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992), and section 944.278, Fla. Stat. (1995). The appellant claims that this is an unconstitutional ex post facto application of these statutes.

In responding to this claim the department relied on Attorney General Opinion 92-96 and eases such as Griffin v. Singletary, 638 So.2d 500 (Fla.1994), for the proposition that these early release mechanisms may be legislatively abolished without violating ex post facto protections. However, after the lower court denied relief the United States Supreme Court addressed a similar claim in Lynce v. Mathis, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997), and repudiated the broad import of these authorities. The appealed order is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for reconsideration or further proceedings in light of Lynce.

WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 So. 2d 794, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cridland-v-singletary-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack