Katwaroo v. State

947 So. 2d 550, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21632, 2006 WL 3780637
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 27, 2006
DocketNo. 4D06-4152
StatusPublished

This text of 947 So. 2d 550 (Katwaroo 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
Katwaroo v. State, 947 So. 2d 550, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21632, 2006 WL 3780637 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The trial court denied appellant’s motion for reduction, modification or [551]*551correction of sentence as legally insufficient. We agree, as it did not allege the type of error that can be corrected pursuant to rule 3.800. Instead, appellant challenges the conditions of his confinement, which is a claim properly addressed by administrative proceedings and then, after exhaustion of administrative remedies, see Taylor v. Perrin, 654 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), by petition for writ of habeas corpus which must be brought in the jurisdiction in which he is being held. See Harvard v. Singletary, 733 So.2d 1020 (Fla.1999).

WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Harvard v. Singletary
733 So. 2d 1020 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)
Taylor v. Perrin
654 So. 2d 1019 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
947 So. 2d 550, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21632, 2006 WL 3780637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katwaroo-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.