Gerald Shiflet v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 30, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1651
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 30, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1651 Lower Tribunal No. F23-24044 ________________

Gerald Shiflet, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariel Rodriguez, Judge.

Gerald Shiflet, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, and Christopher M. Sutter, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees.

Before MILLER, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ.

MILLER, J. Appellant, Gerald Shiflet, appeals from the denial of his petition for

habeas corpus challenging the calculation of his gain time and the retention

of jurisdiction over his sentence. Citing a lack of jurisdiction, the trial court

dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Florida Department of Corrections

commendably concedes the trial court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate

the petition. See § 79.09, Fla. Stat. (2024) (“Before a circuit judge the

petition and the papers shall be filed with the clerk of the circuit court of the

county in which the prisoner is detained.”); Harris v. State, 133 So. 3d 1169,

1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Petitioner’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the

Parole Commission to revoke parole, and his allegation that he is entitled to

immediate release as a result of his unlawful detention, dictate that venue is

proper in the circuit court of the county in which he is incarcerated.”); cf.

Coakley v. State, 43 So. 3d 790, 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Normally, a

habeas corpus petition must be filed in the circuit court for the county in which

the petitioner is imprisoned. But when a petitioner attacks his conviction by

raising issues relating to the trial or to the propriety of a plea, the trial court

that imposed the sentence and rendered the judgment of conviction has

jurisdiction.”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, and upon this limited record,

we are constrained to reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.