Pinckney v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pinckney v. State

779 So. 2d 483, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14598, 2000 WL 1672601

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 8, 2000

DocketNo. 2D00-1520

StatusPublished

This text of 779 So. 2d 483 (Pinckney 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

Pinckney v. State, 779 So. 2d 483, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14598, 2000 WL 1672601 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Herbert Pinckney appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which alleges that he is entitled to relief under the supreme court’s decision in State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999). We affirm the trial court’s order on Pinckney’s claim that he is entitled to resentencing. Since Pinckney was sentenced as a habitual felony offender, he is not entitled to resen-tencing under Thompson because chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, did not amend [484]*484the habitual felony offender designation. See Bernuth v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D2211 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 13, 2000).

Pinckney also claims that he is now entitled to more gain time than he previously received. We do not address the merits of this claim because Pinckney must first present this claim through the administrative channels of the Department of Corrections. See Clements v. State, 761 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). If Pinckney is not satisfied with the ruling of the Department, he can then file a petition for mandamus with the appropriate circuit- court. See Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Affirmed.

BLUE, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Herbert Pinckney appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which alleges that he is entitled to relief under the supreme court’s decision in State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999). We affirm the trial court’s order on Pinckney’s claim that he is entitled to resentencing. Since Pinckney was sentenced as a habitual felony offender, he is not entitled to resen-tencing under Thompson because chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, did not amend [484]*484the habitual felony offender designation. See Bernuth v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D2211 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 13, 2000).

Pinckney also claims that he is now entitled to more gain time than he previously received. We do not address the merits of this claim because Pinckney must first present this claim through the administrative channels of the Department of Corrections. See Clements v. State, 761 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). If Pinckney is not satisfied with the ruling of the Department, he can then file a petition for mandamus with the appropriate circuit- court. See Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Affirmed.

BLUE, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

779 So. 2d 483, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 14598, 2000 WL 1672601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinckney-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack