Fleming v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fleming v. State

697 So. 2d 1322, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9667, 1997 WL 484820

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 1997

DocketNo. 97-547

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 697 So. 2d 1322 (Fleming 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

Fleming v. State, 697 So. 2d 1322, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9667, 1997 WL 484820 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.

Appellant appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state appears to be correct that the writ was properly denied because resolution of the issue raised in appellant’s favor would not entitle him to immediate release. Moreover, we see no merit to appellant’s claim. Appellant contends, in essence, that he is entitled to credit for time served while he was out of prison as a conditional releas-ee.¹ Apparently, he violated the conditions of his release and was re-incarcerated. His argument is predicated on the existence of section 944.275(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1995), which expressly allows extension of release dates for probation violators and escapees but does not mention those who violate their conditions of conditional release. He fails to consider that the sentence he received for his crimes is a term of years, not a specific [1323]*1323release date. Moreover, section 947.141(4) expressly provides that upon revocation of conditional release, the prisoner may be returned to prison to serve the sentence imposed.

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.

Appellant appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state appears to be correct that the writ was properly denied because resolution of the issue raised in appellant’s favor would not entitle him to immediate release. Moreover, we see no merit to appellant’s claim. Appellant contends, in essence, that he is entitled to credit for time served while he was out of prison as a conditional releas-ee.¹ Apparently, he violated the conditions of his release and was re-incarcerated. His argument is predicated on the existence of section 944.275(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1995), which expressly allows extension of release dates for probation violators and escapees but does not mention those who violate their conditions of conditional release. He fails to consider that the sentence he received for his crimes is a term of years, not a specific [1323]*1323release date. Moreover, section 947.141(4) expressly provides that upon revocation of conditional release, the prisoner may be returned to prison to serve the sentence imposed.

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 So. 2d 1322, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9667, 1997 WL 484820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleming-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack