King v. State

187 So. 3d 955, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4793, 2016 WL 1203928
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in King v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 12652
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 29, 2016·No. NO. 1D15-5039·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Appéllant challenges the denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Appellant argued that the trial court improperly authorized the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to determine whether his gain-time should be forfeited after he was found in violation of his probation. He alleged that despite the fact that DOC did not have the authority to forfeit his gain-time based upon the date of his offense, it was nonetheless forfeited. The trial court summarily denied the mo-tion. We hereby, affirm, as this-claim is [956]*956not cognizable pursuant to rule 3.800(a). See Dep’t of Corrections v. Mattress, 686 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 6th DCA 1997).

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur; MAKAR, J., concurring with opinion.

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

King v. State, 187 So. 3d 955, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4793, 2016 WL 1203928 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

187 So. 3d 955 (King v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DEPARTMENT OF CORR., STATE OF FL. v. Mattress
686 So. 2d 740 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)