Magni v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Magni v. State

775 So. 2d 391, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16358, 2000 WL 1838310

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 2000

DocketNo. 2D00-3447

StatusPublished

This text of 775 So. 2d 391 (Magni 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

Magni v. State, 775 So. 2d 391, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16358, 2000 WL 1838310 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Susan Magni challenges the order of the trial court denying her motion to compel the Department of Corrections to run her sentences coterminously. Appellant was sentenced to one year and one day in prison in two different trial court cases; the written sentences reflect that they are to be served concurrently and are to be coterminous. In her motion, she alleges that the Department of Corrections has refused to implement the coterminous provision of the sentences. We affirm the denial of the motion. Appellant’s relief is properly sought through administrative proceedings and, if necessary, by filing a petition for writ of mandamus naming the Department of Corrections as respondent. See Pearson v. Moore, 767 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We do not, at this time, rule upon the merits of appellant’s claim.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Susan Magni challenges the order of the trial court denying her motion to compel the Department of Corrections to run her sentences coterminously. Appellant was sentenced to one year and one day in prison in two different trial court cases; the written sentences reflect that they are to be served concurrently and are to be coterminous. In her motion, she alleges that the Department of Corrections has refused to implement the coterminous provision of the sentences. We affirm the denial of the motion. Appellant’s relief is properly sought through administrative proceedings and, if necessary, by filing a petition for writ of mandamus naming the Department of Corrections as respondent. See Pearson v. Moore, 767 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We do not, at this time, rule upon the merits of appellant’s claim.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

775 So. 2d 391, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16358, 2000 WL 1838310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magni-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack