Haley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haley v. State

787 So. 2d 59, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2092, 2001 WL 193775

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 2001

DocketNo. 2D00-4064

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 787 So. 2d 59 (Haley 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

Haley v. State, 787 So. 2d 59, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2092, 2001 WL 193775 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Randy Haley appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion. In his motion, Haley alleged that he was sentenced as a habitual offender during the Heggs window and that his gain time was illegally reduced under chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, because Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), invalidated chapter 95-184 in its entirety. We affirm the order of the trial court. Appellant must first present his claim administratively to the Department of Corrections; if he is dissatisfied with the result, he can file a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court in the county where he is incarcerated. See Clements v. State, 761 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) Judge, Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Randy Haley appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion. In his motion, Haley alleged that he was sentenced as a habitual offender during the Heggs window and that his gain time was illegally reduced under chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, because Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), invalidated chapter 95-184 in its entirety. We affirm the order of the trial court. Appellant must first present his claim administratively to the Department of Corrections; if he is dissatisfied with the result, he can file a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court in the county where he is incarcerated. See Clements v. State, 761 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) Judge, Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

787 So. 2d 59, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2092, 2001 WL 193775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haley-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack