Tyson v. Florida Department of Corrections

702 So. 2d 1371, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14988, 1997 WL 792058
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 30, 1997
DocketNo. 97-2579
StatusPublished

This text of 702 So. 2d 1371 (Tyson v. Florida Department of Corrections) 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
Tyson v. Florida Department of Corrections, 702 So. 2d 1371, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14988, 1997 WL 792058 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Tommie Tyson, a state inmate, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. [1372]*1372In that petition, Tyson complained that ap-pellee, the Florida Department of Corrections, had failed to properly apply credit for county jail time awarded against his various sentences. The trial court treated Tyson’s petition as a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and denied same as facially insufficient under the rule. Tyson argues in his initial brief that mandamus was the appropriate remedy in this circumstance, and that the trial court therefore erred in treating his petition as seeking relief under rule 3.850.

In apparent response to the initial brief, appellee moves to relinquish jurisdiction, correctly acknowledging that because Tyson did not contest the amount of credit awarded by the sentencing court, and instead challenged only the manner in which that credit was administratively applied, mandamus was the appropriate remedy. See, e.g., Riddell v. State, 534 So.2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The department therefore suggests that it would be most expedient at this juncture to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court to entertain the merits of appellant’s claim. We agree that the trial court erred in denying relief on the grounds stated, but rather than relinquishing jurisdiction, we elect to treat appellee’s motion as a confession of error, and in accordance therewith, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

MICKLE, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Riddell v. State
534 So. 2d 907 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
702 So. 2d 1371, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14988, 1997 WL 792058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyson-v-florida-department-of-corrections-fladistctapp-1997.