Cummings v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cummings v. State

904 So. 2d 581, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 9202, 2005 WL 1398499

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 15, 2005

DocketNo. 3D05-808

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 904 So. 2d 581 (Cummings 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

Cummings v. State, 904 So. 2d 581, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 9202, 2005 WL 1398499 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Lee Cummings seeks review of an order denying his motion seeking post-conviction relief, in the form of jail credit, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The order denying appellant’s motion seeking post-conviction relief is affirmed, as it appears from the record that he was given the appropriate amount of credit in circuit .case number 96-6506. This affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s right to pursue his complaint against the Department of Corrections administratively, if in fact the Department has failed to apply the credit specified in the record to Cumming’s sentence. See Rood v. State, 790 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(appellant must first exhaust available administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections; if unsuccessful, he may then file in the circuit court a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Department to credit him with the full amount of jail and prison time awarded by the trial court).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Lee Cummings seeks review of an order denying his motion seeking post-conviction relief, in the form of jail credit, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The order denying appellant’s motion seeking post-conviction relief is affirmed, as it appears from the record that he was given the appropriate amount of credit in circuit .case number 96-6506. This affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s right to pursue his complaint against the Department of Corrections administratively, if in fact the Department has failed to apply the credit specified in the record to Cumming’s sentence. See Rood v. State, 790 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(appellant must first exhaust available administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections; if unsuccessful, he may then file in the circuit court a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Department to credit him with the full amount of jail and prison time awarded by the trial court).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

904 So. 2d 581, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 9202, 2005 WL 1398499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack