Schlosser v. Singletary

597 So. 2d 304, 1991 WL 237644
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 13, 1991
Docket91-00969
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 597 So. 2d 304 (Schlosser v. Singletary) 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
Schlosser v. Singletary, 597 So. 2d 304, 1991 WL 237644 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

597 So.2d 304 (1991)

Gabriel SCHLOSSER, Appellant,
v.
Harry K. SINGLETARY, Jr., Secretary, Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 91-00969.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 13, 1991.
Rehearing Denied December 5, 1991.

Gabriel Schlosser, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Gabriel Schlosser appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. The petition alleges that Schlosser, who is presently in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, pled guilty to grand theft with the understanding his Florida sentence would run concurrent with an existing federal sentence. However, Florida authorities refuse to transfer him to a federal institution.

Section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that a Florida court "may direct that a sentence ... be served concurrently with a sentence imposed by a court of another state or of the United States," and in such cases that the Department "may designate the correctional institution of the other jurisdiction as the place for reception and confinement" (emphasis added). This language invests the Department with discretion regarding the placement of inmates serving sentences from multiple jurisdictions. Thus Schlosser has failed to demonstrate the existence of a ministerial duty for which mandamus is an appropriate method of enforcement. City of Miami Beach v. Mr. Samuel's, Inc., 351 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1977).

We note that Schlosser's brief goes far beyond the parameters of the mandamus petition. It appears he may also be complaining of a problem along the lines of a previous appeal, Schlosser v. State, 554 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Insofar as no such argument was presented to the trial court, we decline to address it.

Affirmed.

RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

Related

RONALD CLIFFORD CHANDLER v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
LEWIS WILLIAMS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Oscar v. Florida Department of Corrections
973 So. 2d 596 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Glenn v. State
776 So. 2d 330 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Colon-Morales v. State
743 So. 2d 101 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Doyle v. State
615 So. 2d 278 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
597 So. 2d 304, 1991 WL 237644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlosser-v-singletary-fladistctapp-1991.