Howard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Howard v. State

688 So. 2d 992, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1769, 1997 WL 82566

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3326

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 688 So. 2d 992 (Howard 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

Howard v. State, 688 So. 2d 992, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1769, 1997 WL 82566 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Brian Howard (Howard) timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-, conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Howard alleged his plea was rendered involuntary by the 1996 amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-11.0065, which applied retroactively to deny him the ability to earn incentive gain time. We affirm as this claim does not state a claim cognizable in a postconvietion proceeding. See McConnaughy v. State, 684 So.2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Washington v. State, [993]*993683 So.2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Howard seeking mandamus relief in circuit court, if necessary, to require the Department of Corrections to restore his incentive gain time in accordance with Gwong v. Singletary, 683 So.2d 109 (Fla.1996).

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Brian Howard (Howard) timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-, conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Howard alleged his plea was rendered involuntary by the 1996 amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-11.0065, which applied retroactively to deny him the ability to earn incentive gain time. We affirm as this claim does not state a claim cognizable in a postconvietion proceeding. See McConnaughy v. State, 684 So.2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Washington v. State, [993]*993683 So.2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Howard seeking mandamus relief in circuit court, if necessary, to require the Department of Corrections to restore his incentive gain time in accordance with Gwong v. Singletary, 683 So.2d 109 (Fla.1996).

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

688 So. 2d 992, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1769, 1997 WL 82566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack