Gooberman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gooberman v. State

697 So. 2d 1014, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9181, 1997 WL 464154

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 1997

DocketNo. 97-1031

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 697 So. 2d 1014 (Gooberman 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

Gooberman v. State, 697 So. 2d 1014, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9181, 1997 WL 464154 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review an order of the trial court summarily denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850. Appellant makes three arguments: (1) that a recently propounded DOC incentive gain-time rule, which presumably would render him ineligible for a certain portion of gain-time, is unconstitutional and otherwise illegal; (2) that his attorney was ineffective in advising appellant that he would receive a specific amount of gain-time, thereby inducing appellant to enter a plea to the charges; and (3) that as a result of the foregoing, his plea was involuntary.

Regarding the first argument, the proper remedy to compel an award of gain-time by the DOC is a petition for writ of mandamus filed in the circuit court after administrative procedures through DOC have been exhausted. See King v. State, 665 So.2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Barber v. State, 661 So.2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Appellant’s last two claims are simply without merit because trial counsel could not be deemed ineffective for fading to have anticipated a change in administrative rules three years into the future.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion without prejudice to appellant’s ability to file a petition for writ of mandamus in the trial court after he exhausts his administrative remedies.

DELL, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review an order of the trial court summarily denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850. Appellant makes three arguments: (1) that a recently propounded DOC incentive gain-time rule, which presumably would render him ineligible for a certain portion of gain-time, is unconstitutional and otherwise illegal; (2) that his attorney was ineffective in advising appellant that he would receive a specific amount of gain-time, thereby inducing appellant to enter a plea to the charges; and (3) that as a result of the foregoing, his plea was involuntary.

Regarding the first argument, the proper remedy to compel an award of gain-time by the DOC is a petition for writ of mandamus filed in the circuit court after administrative procedures through DOC have been exhausted. See King v. State, 665 So.2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Barber v. State, 661 So.2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Appellant’s last two claims are simply without merit because trial counsel could not be deemed ineffective for fading to have anticipated a change in administrative rules three years into the future.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion without prejudice to appellant’s ability to file a petition for writ of mandamus in the trial court after he exhausts his administrative remedies.

DELL, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 So. 2d 1014, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9181, 1997 WL 464154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gooberman-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack