Miller v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miller v. Singletary

688 So. 2d 448, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1768, 1997 WL 82547

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2321

StatusPublished

This text of 688 So. 2d 448 (Miller 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

Miller v. Singletary, 688 So. 2d 448, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1768, 1997 WL 82547 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBSTER, Judge.

Appellant, an inmate of the state correctional system, seeks review of a final order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a loss of gain time and other adverse consequences imposed following a finding that he had committed a disciplinary [449]*449infraction. The trial court based its order on the alternative holdings that appellant’s petition was barred by the applicable statute of limitations or, if not barred, that the petition was facially insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. In light of Van Meter v. Singletary, 682 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), review pending, Case No. 89,325 (Fla. filed Nov. 12, 1996), which was decided after this case had become final in the trial court, it was error to hold that the case was barred by the statute of limitations. However, having carefully reviewed appellant’s petition, we agree with the trial court’s alternative holding that it was facially insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. Accordingly, we affirm on that basis.

AFFIRMED.

MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

WEBSTER, Judge.

Appellant, an inmate of the state correctional system, seeks review of a final order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a loss of gain time and other adverse consequences imposed following a finding that he had committed a disciplinary [449]*449infraction. The trial court based its order on the alternative holdings that appellant’s petition was barred by the applicable statute of limitations or, if not barred, that the petition was facially insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. In light of Van Meter v. Singletary, 682 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), review pending, Case No. 89,325 (Fla. filed Nov. 12, 1996), which was decided after this case had become final in the trial court, it was error to hold that the case was barred by the statute of limitations. However, having carefully reviewed appellant’s petition, we agree with the trial court’s alternative holding that it was facially insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. Accordingly, we affirm on that basis.

AFFIRMED.

MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

688 So. 2d 448, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1768, 1997 WL 82547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-singletary-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack