Singletary v. Armstrong

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Singletary v. Armstrong

706 So. 2d 943, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2011, 1998 WL 88252

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 1998

DocketNo. 96-01505

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 706 So. 2d 943 (Singletary v. Armstrong) 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

Singletary v. Armstrong, 706 So. 2d 943, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2011, 1998 WL 88252 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

The Department of Corrections has appealed from an order granting mandamus relief to Mr. Armstrong based on Buffa v. Singletary, 652 So.2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The trial court found that forfeiture of Mr. Armstrong’s gain-time earned during imprisonment for a mandatory term was improper. Since that time the First District has receded from Buffa in Singletary v. Jones, 681 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The Jones court held that basic gain-time is subject to forfeiture in connection with disciplinary action during a mandatory minimum term. We agree with the reasoning in Jones and accordingly reverse the order granting mandamus relief and remand to the trial court with directions to dismiss Mr. Armstrong’s petition for mandamus.

PARKER, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

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

FRANK, Judge.

The Department of Corrections has appealed from an order granting mandamus relief to Mr. Armstrong based on Buffa v. Singletary, 652 So.2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The trial court found that forfeiture of Mr. Armstrong’s gain-time earned during imprisonment for a mandatory term was improper. Since that time the First District has receded from Buffa in Singletary v. Jones, 681 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The Jones court held that basic gain-time is subject to forfeiture in connection with disciplinary action during a mandatory minimum term. We agree with the reasoning in Jones and accordingly reverse the order granting mandamus relief and remand to the trial court with directions to dismiss Mr. Armstrong’s petition for mandamus.

PARKER, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 So. 2d 943, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2011, 1998 WL 88252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singletary-v-armstrong-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack