Hill v. Florida Department of Corrections

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hill v. Florida Department of Corrections

703 So. 2d 1211, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14502, 1997 WL 795579

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 31, 1997

DocketNo. 97-3584

StatusPublished

This text of 703 So. 2d 1211 (Hill v. Florida Department of Corrections) 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

Hill v. Florida Department of Corrections, 703 So. 2d 1211, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14502, 1997 WL 795579 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By motion to relinquish jurisdiction, appel-lee concedes that the trial court erred in summarily denying appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus based upon a finding that the appropriate means for presenting appellant’s claims was by motion for post-conviction relief filed in the sentencing court. Appellee thus suggests that it would be most expedient at this juncture to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court in order that the merits of appellant’s petition may be addressed. We agree with appellee that because the petition below challenged only ap-pellee’s application and forfeiture of certain gain-time and early release credits, and appellant contended that he would be entitled to immediate release if granted the relief sought, habeas corpus was the proper remedy. However, rather than relinquishing jurisdiction, we elect to treat appellee’s motion as a confession of error, and in accordance therewith we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

MINER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

By motion to relinquish jurisdiction, appel-lee concedes that the trial court erred in summarily denying appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus based upon a finding that the appropriate means for presenting appellant’s claims was by motion for post-conviction relief filed in the sentencing court. Appellee thus suggests that it would be most expedient at this juncture to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court in order that the merits of appellant’s petition may be addressed. We agree with appellee that because the petition below challenged only ap-pellee’s application and forfeiture of certain gain-time and early release credits, and appellant contended that he would be entitled to immediate release if granted the relief sought, habeas corpus was the proper remedy. However, rather than relinquishing jurisdiction, we elect to treat appellee’s motion as a confession of error, and in accordance therewith we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

MINER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 So. 2d 1211, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14502, 1997 WL 795579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-florida-department-of-corrections-fladistctapp-1997.