Kelly v. Dugger

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kelly v. Dugger

579 So. 2d 929, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5358, 1991 WL 97039

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 6, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2041

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 929 (Kelly v. Dugger) 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

Kelly v. Dugger, 579 So. 2d 929, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5358, 1991 WL 97039 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kelly filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the trial court. He claimed entitlement to additional incentive gain time under the holding in Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So.2d 687 (Fla.1990). Because Kelly’s crimes were committed prior to June of 1978, and after July of 1983, the trial court correctly determined that he was not entitled to relief under Waldrup, and denied his petition. Accordingly, we affirm.

Two claims not presented in Kelly’s petition in the trial court are raised in his brief. First, he argues that he is entitled to additional basic gain time under the holding in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). Secondly, he argues that he has an equal protection right to additional incentive gain time because similarly situated prisoners are being awarded more incentive gain time than is being awarded to him. See Waldrup v. Dugger, supra, at p. 695. Because these claims were not presented to the trial court, we do not address them herein.

AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS, C.J., and WOLF and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kelly filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the trial court. He claimed entitlement to additional incentive gain time under the holding in Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So.2d 687 (Fla.1990). Because Kelly’s crimes were committed prior to June of 1978, and after July of 1983, the trial court correctly determined that he was not entitled to relief under Waldrup, and denied his petition. Accordingly, we affirm.

Two claims not presented in Kelly’s petition in the trial court are raised in his brief. First, he argues that he is entitled to additional basic gain time under the holding in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). Secondly, he argues that he has an equal protection right to additional incentive gain time because similarly situated prisoners are being awarded more incentive gain time than is being awarded to him. See Waldrup v. Dugger, supra, at p. 695. Because these claims were not presented to the trial court, we do not address them herein.

AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS, C.J., and WOLF and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 So. 2d 929, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5358, 1991 WL 97039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-dugger-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack