Milton v. Dugger

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Milton v. Dugger

597 So. 2d 403, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4490, 1992 WL 76744

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 1992

DocketNo. 91-2010

StatusPublished

This text of 597 So. 2d 403 (Milton v. Dugger) 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

Milton v. Dugger, 597 So. 2d 403, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4490, 1992 WL 76744 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR CORRECTION OR CLARIFICATION

The opinion filed March 11, 1992, is withdrawn and the following is substituted in its place.

PER CURIAM.

French Milton is serving two consecutive sentences and one concurrent sentence for three robbery convictions,¹ each of which included a three-year minimum mandatory sentence under Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1981), for possessing a firearm during the robberies. The Department of Corrections (DOC) represented that Milton’s maximum release date is May 1, 2015. Because his convictions occurred prior to August 12,1983, he continued to earn work gain time while he was serving his minimum mandatory sentences between 1984 and 1989, pursuant to Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So.2d 687 (Fla.1990), and James v. Department of Corrections, 424 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Milton claims that under these decisions his work gain time should have been directly applied to his minimum mandatory sentences, rather than applied to the end of his total period of incarceration. If the gain time credits were so applied, Milton might have earned provisional credits that were otherwise denied him while he served the last of his minimum mandatory sentences in 1988 and 1989.

DOC represents that pursuant to agency policy and Section 944.275(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), it establishes a maximum release date based upon an inmate’s sentence, and thereafter subtracts and adds days from the end of the sentence based upon all forms of gain time and provisional credits awarded to and forfeited by the inmate. In that DOC’s interpretation of section 944.275(3)(a) does not appear inconsistent with the statutory language therein, we conclude that DOC’s denial of provisional credits during the time Milton was serv[404]*404ing his minimum mandatory sentence in 1988/1989 was proper.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, SMITH and ALLEN, JJ„ concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR CORRECTION OR CLARIFICATION

The opinion filed March 11, 1992, is withdrawn and the following is substituted in its place.

PER CURIAM.

French Milton is serving two consecutive sentences and one concurrent sentence for three robbery convictions,¹ each of which included a three-year minimum mandatory sentence under Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1981), for possessing a firearm during the robberies. The Department of Corrections (DOC) represented that Milton’s maximum release date is May 1, 2015. Because his convictions occurred prior to August 12,1983, he continued to earn work gain time while he was serving his minimum mandatory sentences between 1984 and 1989, pursuant to Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So.2d 687 (Fla.1990), and James v. Department of Corrections, 424 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Milton claims that under these decisions his work gain time should have been directly applied to his minimum mandatory sentences, rather than applied to the end of his total period of incarceration. If the gain time credits were so applied, Milton might have earned provisional credits that were otherwise denied him while he served the last of his minimum mandatory sentences in 1988 and 1989.

DOC represents that pursuant to agency policy and Section 944.275(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), it establishes a maximum release date based upon an inmate’s sentence, and thereafter subtracts and adds days from the end of the sentence based upon all forms of gain time and provisional credits awarded to and forfeited by the inmate. In that DOC’s interpretation of section 944.275(3)(a) does not appear inconsistent with the statutory language therein, we conclude that DOC’s denial of provisional credits during the time Milton was serv[404]*404ing his minimum mandatory sentence in 1988/1989 was proper.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, SMITH and ALLEN, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

597 So. 2d 403, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4490, 1992 WL 76744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milton-v-dugger-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack