Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Rood v. State

Rood v. State

790 So. 2d 1192, 2001 WL 848827
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 30, 2001
Docket1D01-794
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 790 So. 2d 1192 (Rood 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
Rood v. State, 790 So. 2d 1192, 2001 WL 848827 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

790 So.2d 1192 (2001)

Charles E. ROOD, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D01-794.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 30, 2001.

Appellant pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Karen Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

*1193 PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion seeking postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. It appears that appellant's real complaint is with the Department of Corrections, which he alleges refused to give him the full 5 years and 32 days of jail and prison credit specified in the judgment and sentence imposed for violation of probation. "[T]he Department [of Corrections] does not have the authority to review and reject a trial court's specific award of credit." Hall v. Moore, 777 So.2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). To remedy this apparent error on the part of the Department of Corrections, however, appellant must exhaust available administrative remedies. If that proves unsuccessful, he may then file in the circuit court a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Department to credit him with the full amount of jail and prison time awarded by the trial court. Bedford v. State, 775 So.2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Accordingly, the order denying appellant's motion seeking postconviction relief is affirmed, without prejudice to appellant's right to pursue his complaint against the Department of Corrections administratively.

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, BROWNING and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ballinger v. State
274 So. 3d 1176 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
David J. Ballinger v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Jesus Condom v. State of Florida
189 So. 3d 859 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Seymoore v. State
120 So. 3d 112 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Cunningham v. State
968 So. 2d 119 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Canete v. Florida Dept. of Corrections
967 So. 2d 412 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Sharp v. State
918 So. 2d 336 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Bradshaw v. State
912 So. 2d 381 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Chester v. State
905 So. 2d 973 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Boan v. State
905 So. 2d 974 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Cummings v. State
904 So. 2d 581 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Davis v. State
882 So. 2d 1092 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Newman v. State
866 So. 2d 751 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Armstrong v. State
846 So. 2d 1227 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Perkins v. State
839 So. 2d 797 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Hudson v. State
825 So. 2d 514 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Verrone v. State
797 So. 2d 613 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
790 So. 2d 1192, 2001 WL 848827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rood-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.