Mamone v. Dean

619 So. 2d 36, 1993 WL 196329
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 11, 1993
Docket92-2178
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 619 So. 2d 36 (Mamone v. Dean) 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
Mamone v. Dean, 619 So. 2d 36, 1993 WL 196329 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

619 So.2d 36 (1993)

Richard MAMONE, Appellant,
v.
Don M. DEAN, Superintendent, Lake Correctional Institution and Harry K. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellees.

No. 92-2178.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 11, 1993.

Richard Mamone, pro se.

Susan A. Maher, Deputy General Counsel, Dept. of Corrections, Tallahassee, for appellees.

COBB, Judge.

The issue on this appeal is whether the appellant, Mamone, was wrongfully denied retroactive provisional credits for gain-time by the Department of Corrections in respect to a portion of his prison sentence. He is serving an overall term of 13 1/2 years comprised of a 3 1/2-year term followed by a 10-year habitualized term.

Based upon the case of Dugger v. Anderson, 593 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), Mamone contends he is entitled to the credit against the 3 1/2-year term. We disagree. After Anderson (and, indeed, because of it), the Florida Legislature remedied the language of section 944.277(1)(g), Florida Statutes, to show its clear intent that an inmate is precluded from receiving provisional credits once sentenced as a habitual offender.

We find no merit in the appellant's other arguments. In the recent opinion of Dugger v. Grant, 610 So.2d 428 (Fla. 1992), the supreme court ruled that Florida's early release mechanisms, including the provisional credits statute, do not create protected liberty interests. In Dugger v. Rodrick, 584 So.2d 2 (Fla. 1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 886, 116 L.Ed.2d 790 (1992), the Supreme Court specifically ruled that changes to Florida's early release statute do not violate the ex post facto clause because the statutes do not affect substantive matters of punishment, but are merely administrative procedural mechanisms for controlling prison overcrowding.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Robert B. Leftwich v. Florida Department of Corrections
148 So. 3d 79 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2014)
Downs v. Crosby
874 So. 2d 648 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
McBride v. Moore
780 So. 2d 221 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Williams v. State
698 So. 2d 626 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Powell v. Singletary
637 So. 2d 359 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
619 So. 2d 36, 1993 WL 196329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mamone-v-dean-fladistctapp-1993.