Croft v. State

136 So. 3d 658, 2013 WL 6800987, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 20157
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 20, 2013
DocketNo. 2D13-1715
StatusPublished

This text of 136 So. 3d 658 (Croft 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
Croft v. State, 136 So. 3d 658, 2013 WL 6800987, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 20157 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

David Dean Croft, a/k/a David Dark Horse, appeals the postconviction court order dismissing in part and summarily denying in part his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm. However, as to Mr. Croft’s claim challenging his presumptive parole release date, our affirmance is without prejudice to pursue his administrative remedies with the Florida Parole Commission. If he is unsuccessful, he may seek mandamus relief in the appropriate circuit court. See Werts v. State, 113 So.3d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Sullivan v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 920 So.2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

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

Related

Sullivan v. Florida Parole Commission
920 So. 2d 106 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Werts v. State
113 So. 3d 859 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 So. 3d 658, 2013 WL 6800987, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 20157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/croft-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.