Mathis v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mathis v. Singletary

671 So. 2d 223, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3476, 1996 WL 159126

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1651

StatusPublished

This text of 671 So. 2d 223 (Mathis v. Singletary) 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

Mathis v. Singletary, 671 So. 2d 223, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3476, 1996 WL 159126 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mathis sought relief in circuit court by writ of mandamus, asserting that forfeiture of certain gain-time and provisional release credits violated the ex post facto clause. The petition was denied and Mathis timely appealed to this court. In his initial brief appellant relied upon Orosz v. Singletary, 655 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1995). Rather than filing an answer brief, appellee moved this court for a relinquishment of jurisdiction to the circuit [224]*224court for reconsideration of its order in light of Orosz. We determine that a more appropriate disposition is to treat this motion as a confession of error and, accordingly, we do so and REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings, directing the trial court to revisit the mandamus petition with due consideration to the supreme court’s Orosz decision.

WOLF, MICKLE and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mathis sought relief in circuit court by writ of mandamus, asserting that forfeiture of certain gain-time and provisional release credits violated the ex post facto clause. The petition was denied and Mathis timely appealed to this court. In his initial brief appellant relied upon Orosz v. Singletary, 655 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1995). Rather than filing an answer brief, appellee moved this court for a relinquishment of jurisdiction to the circuit [224]*224court for reconsideration of its order in light of Orosz. We determine that a more appropriate disposition is to treat this motion as a confession of error and, accordingly, we do so and REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings, directing the trial court to revisit the mandamus petition with due consideration to the supreme court’s Orosz decision.

WOLF, MICKLE and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 So. 2d 223, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3476, 1996 WL 159126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathis-v-singletary-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack