Warner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Warner v. State

930 So. 2d 836, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8931, 2006 WL 1540875

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Warner v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 916 So. 2d 879 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 7, 2006·No. No. 4D06-1794·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of the defendant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. The defendant challenges the Department of Corrections’ interpretation of his sentence. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the defendant pursuing his administrative remedies against the Department, after which, he can file a petition for writ of mandamus in the ap[837]*837propriate circuit court. See Smith v. State, 785 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

STONE, FARMER and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of the defendant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. The defendant challenges the Department of Corrections’ interpretation of his sentence. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the defendant pursuing his administrative remedies against the Department, after which, he can file a petition for writ of mandamus in the ap[837]*837propriate circuit court. See Smith v. State, 785 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

STONE, FARMER and MAY, JJ., concur.

Warner v. State, 930 So. 2d 836, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8931, 2006 WL 1540875 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

930 So. 2d 836 (Warner v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related