Rodriguez v. Crosby

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodriguez v. Crosby

911 So. 2d 290, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15762, 2005 WL 2447864

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 5, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-2540

StatusPublished

This text of 911 So. 2d 290 (Rodriguez v. Crosby) 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

Rodriguez v. Crosby, 911 So. 2d 290, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15762, 2005 WL 2447864 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

The appellant, a prisoner incarcerated at Glades Correctional Institution in Palm Beach County, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. The appellant originally filed his petition in the Second Judicial Circuit, seeking to reverse the forfeiture of his accrued gain time. The Second Judicial Circuit found that it did not have jurisdiction, and transferred the case to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. The Eleventh Judicial Circuit denied the petition. The appellant appeals, arguing that venue was improper in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, and that jurisdiction was proper in the Second Judicial Circuit. The appellee properly confesses error, conceding that venue was improper in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. See Griffith v. Crosby, 898 So.2d 212, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)(“Where an inmate seeks mandamus review of a decision of the Department regarding the forfeiture of gain time as the result of a prison disciplinary matter, the proper venue is laid either in the county where the inmate is incarcerated or in the county where the Department’s headquarters are located.”); see also Burgess v. Crosby, 870 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

We, therefore, reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to transfer the case to a correct venue.

Reversed and remanded.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

The appellant, a prisoner incarcerated at Glades Correctional Institution in Palm Beach County, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. The appellant originally filed his petition in the Second Judicial Circuit, seeking to reverse the forfeiture of his accrued gain time. The Second Judicial Circuit found that it did not have jurisdiction, and transferred the case to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. The Eleventh Judicial Circuit denied the petition. The appellant appeals, arguing that venue was improper in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, and that jurisdiction was proper in the Second Judicial Circuit. The appellee properly confesses error, conceding that venue was improper in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. See Griffith v. Crosby, 898 So.2d 212, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)(“Where an inmate seeks mandamus review of a decision of the Department regarding the forfeiture of gain time as the result of a prison disciplinary matter, the proper venue is laid either in the county where the inmate is incarcerated or in the county where the Department’s headquarters are located.”); see also Burgess v. Crosby, 870 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

We, therefore, reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to transfer the case to a correct venue.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

911 So. 2d 290, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15762, 2005 WL 2447864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-crosby-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack