Davis v. Singletary, 95-00999
| Decision Date | 26 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-00999,95-00999 |
| Citation | 659 So.2d 1126 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2461 Carlton DAVIS, Petitioner, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Jr., Secretary, Department of Corrections, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carlton Davis, an inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections ("DOC"), petitions this court for writ of mandamus. This petition is Davis' most recent effort to enforce the terms of a plea agreement under which he was sentenced on April 12, 1992, for violating a term of probation that had previously been imposed as part of a split sentence. Based on the pleadings in the records before us, it appears that all parties to the plea agreement contemplated that Davis would receive credit for ten years 1 against a fifteen year sentence. Thus, Davis was actually being sentenced to serve five years for the probation violation. However, as a result of the DOC's interpretation of section 944.278, Florida Statutes (1993), Davis was not awarded a full ten years of credit. 2
In response to a motion filed by Davis, the trial court entered an order to award proper credit time which set out the intent of the plea agreement and ordered the DOC to "forthwith re-calculate the Defendant's gain time credits in accord with the law which was applicable to the Defendant's situation at the time that he was sentenced, on April 12, 1992 and at the time that his offenses were committed in 1987." 3 The DOC filed a petition for certiorari challenging the trial court's order on several grounds. This court denied the petition for certiorari by order dated January 18, 1994, which recognized Davis' right to have the terms of his plea agreement enforced. Davis now seeks mandamus relief alleging that the DOC continues to challenge the application of credit intended by the plea agreement.
We do not rule on the merits of DOC's interpretation of section 944.278 as it may apply to other cases. However, we do acknowledge that a trial court is without authority to direct the manner in which DOC calculates those credits awarded solely to reduce prison overcrowding. Nevertheless, in this case, Davis entered into a negotiated plea that all parties to the agreement contemplated would result in Davis serving an additional five years of incarceration. If Davis receives ten years of credit against his fifteen year sentence, it appears that he may be entitled to immediate release.
In order to expedite these proceedings, we treat the petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Commitment of Larry Phillips.Larry Phillips
...subject to all other applicable statutory conditions. Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So.2d 687, 694 (Fla.1990); Davis v. Singletary, 659 So.2d 1126, 1127 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Thus, the incentive gain time already earned and calculated is properly included in determining whether Phillips was law......
-
Cruz v. State
...would take into account the department's cancellation of credit, or to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea); and Davis v. Singletary, 659 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (treating defendant's mandamus petition as a motion to enforce the plea agreement transferring it to the sentencing ju......
-
Williams v. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, 97-3497.
...would be a usurpation of the DOC's executive authority. Singletary v. Evans, 676 So.2d 51, 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Davis v. Singletary, 659 So.2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). However, we also agree with Williams' contention that all parties to the negotiated plea agreement contemplated th......
-
In Re Commitment Of Larry Phillips. Larry Phillips
...subject to all other applicable statutory conditions. Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So. 2d 687, 694 (Fla. 1990); Davis v. Singletary, 659 So. 2d 1126, 1127 n.3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Thus, the incentive gain time already earned and calculated is properlyincluded in determining whether Phillips was la......