Harvey v. State
| Decision Date | 19 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-00512,93-00512 |
| Citation | 616 So.2d 521 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D779 Walter HARVEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Walter Harvey appeals the summary denial of two motions. The first seeks postconviction relief, based primarily upon Harvey's contention that he did not understand the consequences of his guilty plea. The second, captioned "motion for correct release date," deals with the award of gain time.
In denying postconviction relief, the trial court attached the plea colloquy and other documents. These conclusively demonstrate that Harvey is not entitled to withdraw his plea or to be resentenced. As to the second motion, the trial court correctly found that the award of gain time is the province of the Department of Corrections, not the court. We therefore affirm both orders.
We are concerned, however, about a separate claim made in the "memorandum brief of appellant" that Harvey has submitted for the first time to this court. Harvey is a juvenile who was prosecuted as an adult. The trial court imposed a split sentence under the Youthful Offender Act. Sec. 958.04, Fla.Stat. (1991). Harvey states that he is "presently confined ... in Charlotte Correctional Institution with mentally impaired prisoners and adult habitual offenders as well as other violent felony offenders rather than at a youth camp or institution."
Section 958.11(2) provides that "[y]outhful offender institutions ... shall contain only those youthful offenders sentenced as such by a court or classified as such by the department." Charlotte Correctional is not among the youthful offender institutions enumerated in section 33-6.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. Accordingly, the question arises whether Harvey is being incarcerated unlawfully, and if so, what he should do about it.
Upon further review we conclude that Harvey's brief, assuming we are entitled to consider its allegations, contains no showing of unlawful confinement. The Department of Corrections is authorized under certain circumstances to remove youthful offenders from its specialized facilities, such as when the prisoner has become "a serious management or disciplinary problem." Sec. 958.11(3)(b). Under section 33-6.003(3), Florida Administrative Code, such transfers are not intended to be "regular," should be supported by a report detailing the reasons for transfer, and should be reviewed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hannon v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
...The award and forfeiture of statutory gain time is a function of the Department of Corrections, not the Court. See Harvey v. State, 616 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). There is no indication that the State suppressed evidence relating to its agreement with Richardson. The record reveals that ......
-
Taylor v. State, 96-1318
...complaints regarding miscalculations of credit for time served. Posey v. Kaplan, 660 So.2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Harvey v. State, 616 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Further, issues regarding credit for time served are not properly the subject of Rule 3.800(a) motions. Sullivan v. State, 6......
-
Bush v. Florida Parole Com'n
...release. However, the award and forfeiture of statutory gain time is a function of the Department of Corrections. See Harvey v. State, 616 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Curry v. Wainwright, 422 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). As such, appellant's entitlement to relief, if any, must be obtai......
-
Posey v. Kaplan, 95-0565
...considered Green v. State, 636 So.2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), Walker v. State, 619 So.2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), and Harvey v. State, 616 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), relied on by Respondent. However, we deem them inapposite as to the limited issue resolved Therefore, the dismissal order ......