Kalway v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kalway v. Singletary

712 So. 2d 410, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4750, 1998 WL 204687

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1998

DocketNo. 97-1751

StatusPublished

This text of 712 So. 2d 410 (Kalway v. Singletary) 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

Kalway v. Singletary, 712 So. 2d 410, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4750, 1998 WL 204687 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Robert Kalway filed a petition to initiate rulemaking with the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), requesting' that the DOC amend Rule 33-11.0065, Florida Administrative Code. See § 120.54(7), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996) (“Any person regulated by an agency or having substantial interest in an agency rule may petition an agency to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule.... ”). The petition alleged that the unamended rule, authorizing imposition of ineligibility to earn gain time prospectively as authorized by section 944.281, Florida Statutes, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The DOC denied the petition and Mr. Kalway appealed.

In an unrelated case, during the pendency of the present appeal, the Florida Supreme Court determined that Rule 33-11.0065 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, when applied to prisoners incarcerated for offenses committed before October 1, 1995. Britt v. Chiles, 704 So.2d 1046, 1048 (Fla.1997). After the Britt decision, the DOC proposed an amendment to Rule 33-11.0065, in order to conform the rule to the requirements of the Ex Post Facto Clause as explicated in Britt. 24 Fla. Admin. Weekly 592, 593 (Feb. 6, 1998). Because the DOC has initiated the requested rulemaking, this appeal is moot.

Dismissed.

BOOTH, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

James Robert Kalway filed a petition to initiate rulemaking with the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), requesting' that the DOC amend Rule 33-11.0065, Florida Administrative Code. See § 120.54(7), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996) (“Any person regulated by an agency or having substantial interest in an agency rule may petition an agency to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule.... ”). The petition alleged that the unamended rule, authorizing imposition of ineligibility to earn gain time prospectively as authorized by section 944.281, Florida Statutes, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The DOC denied the petition and Mr. Kalway appealed.

In an unrelated case, during the pendency of the present appeal, the Florida Supreme Court determined that Rule 33-11.0065 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, when applied to prisoners incarcerated for offenses committed before October 1, 1995. Britt v. Chiles, 704 So.2d 1046, 1048 (Fla.1997). After the Britt decision, the DOC proposed an amendment to Rule 33-11.0065, in order to conform the rule to the requirements of the Ex Post Facto Clause as explicated in Britt. 24 Fla. Admin. Weekly 592, 593 (Feb. 6, 1998). Because the DOC has initiated the requested rulemaking, this appeal is moot.

Dismissed.

BOOTH, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

712 So. 2d 410, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 4750, 1998 WL 204687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalway-v-singletary-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack