Feiler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Feiler v. State

777 So. 2d 1080, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 235, 2001 WL 38663

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 2001

DocketNo. 2D00-3336

StatusPublished

This text of 777 So. 2d 1080 (Feiler 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

Feiler v. State, 777 So. 2d 1080, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 235, 2001 WL 38663 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Charles Feiler appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging that he is entitled to relief under the supreme court’s decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). We affirm the trial court’s order in all respects.

In his initial brief, Feiler raised an additional claim regarding gain time credit which he failed to raise in his motion for postconviction relief filed in the trial court. We point out that because Feiler did not include this claim in his motion filed in the trial court, we cannot address this issue on appeal. Furthermore, Feiler must first exhaust administrative remedies through the Department of Corrections. See Clements v. State, 761 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). If Feiler is not satisfied with the ruling of the Department, he can then file a petition for writ of mandamus with the appropriate circuit court. See Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Affirmed.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and GREEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Charles Feiler appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging that he is entitled to relief under the supreme court’s decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). We affirm the trial court’s order in all respects.

In his initial brief, Feiler raised an additional claim regarding gain time credit which he failed to raise in his motion for postconviction relief filed in the trial court. We point out that because Feiler did not include this claim in his motion filed in the trial court, we cannot address this issue on appeal. Furthermore, Feiler must first exhaust administrative remedies through the Department of Corrections. See Clements v. State, 761 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). If Feiler is not satisfied with the ruling of the Department, he can then file a petition for writ of mandamus with the appropriate circuit court. See Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Affirmed.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and GREEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

777 So. 2d 1080, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 235, 2001 WL 38663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feiler-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack