Rodrick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodrick v. State

567 So. 2d 906, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6432, 1990 WL 121777

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 1990

DocketNo. 89-02188

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 567 So. 2d 906 (Rodrick 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

Rodrick v. State, 567 So. 2d 906, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6432, 1990 WL 121777 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

This pro se appellant, Jeffrey T. Rodrick, challenges on ex post facto grounds the final trial court order that denied Rodrick’s petition for mandamus in which he sought correction of an alleged improper denial of gain time. The recent decision of our supreme court in Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So.2d 687 (Fla.1990), controls our decision in this case. After Rodrick's offense was committed, the legislature enacted section 944.277, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), the effect of which was to repeal section 944.-276, Florida Statutes (1987) and, thereby, to deny Rodrick gain time that he had already begun to receive. Waldrup holds that such an application of the statute, by precluding Rodrick from receiving the gain time to which he was entitled when his offense was committed, is improper as an ex post facto application of the law even though Rodrick had only a “mere expectancy” in the gain time.

We, therefore, reverse the order denying the writ of mandamus and remand to the trial court with instructions to grant the writ.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

This pro se appellant, Jeffrey T. Rodrick, challenges on ex post facto grounds the final trial court order that denied Rodrick’s petition for mandamus in which he sought correction of an alleged improper denial of gain time. The recent decision of our supreme court in Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So.2d 687 (Fla.1990), controls our decision in this case. After Rodrick's offense was committed, the legislature enacted section 944.277, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), the effect of which was to repeal section 944.-276, Florida Statutes (1987) and, thereby, to deny Rodrick gain time that he had already begun to receive. Waldrup holds that such an application of the statute, by precluding Rodrick from receiving the gain time to which he was entitled when his offense was committed, is improper as an ex post facto application of the law even though Rodrick had only a “mere expectancy” in the gain time.

We, therefore, reverse the order denying the writ of mandamus and remand to the trial court with instructions to grant the writ.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 So. 2d 906, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6432, 1990 WL 121777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodrick-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack