Williams v. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, 97-3497.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-3497.,97-3497. |
| Parties | Jacob WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jacob Williams, in proper person.
Susan Schwartz, Assistant General Counsel, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ.
Jacob Williams appeals from the denial of his writ of mandamus. We affirm, in part, and remand, in part.
Williams violated his community control and entered into a negotiated plea agreement wherein his community control was revoked, and he was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment with six years and six months credit for time previously served. The award of six years and six months, or 2,372.5 days, credit for time previously served included 1204 days of gain time previously earned.
Upon Williams' return to the Department of Corrections [DOC], pursuant to section 944.28(1), Florida Statutes (1995), the DOC declared a forfeiture of the 1204 days of gain time he had previously earned. After exhausting all of the administrative remedies provided by the DOC, Williams filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the trial court requesting that the DOC be compelled to award him gain time in accordance with the negotiated plea. In addition, Williams alleged that because of the DOC's forfeiture of the previously awarded gain time, he was being illegally detained, and that had the gain time been properly credited, he should have been released in 1996.
The trial court denied the writ of mandamus finding that the DOC had acted within its discretion in forfeiting Williams' gain time pursuant to section 944.28(1). Forbes v. Singletary, 684 So.2d 173, 174-75 (Fla.1996); Bradley v. State, 631 So.2d 1096, 1098 (Fla.1994). We agree with the trial court's finding because any attempt to compel enforcement of the negotiated plea agreement 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 that, of the fifteen-year sentence, he would only serve eight and a half years, and that the DOC's forfeiture of his gain time thwarted the intent of the negotiated plea agreement. Therefore, the trial court should have treated the petition as a motion to enforce the plea agreement and transferred the cause to the sentencing court1 for resentencing in a manner that effectuates the intent of the plea agreement and takes into account the effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lafave
...gain time cannot be countermanded by the court, but neither can that forfeiture thwart the plea bargain"); Williams v. Dep't of Corr., 734 So. 2d 1132, 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (noting that "any attempt to compel enforcement of the negotiated plea agreement [which contemplated that appellant......
-
State v. Lafave
...gain time cannot be countermanded by the court, but neither can that forfeiture thwart the plea bargain”); Williams v. Dep't of Corr., 734 So.2d 1132, 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (noting that “any [113 So.3d 41]attempt to compel enforcement of the negotiated plea agreement [which contemplated t......
-
Crump v. State
...994 So.2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (same); State v. Jackson, 842 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (same); Williams v. Dep't of Corrections, 734 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (same). As these cases illustrate, when a defendant agrees to plead to charges in exchange for a sentence which takes into......
-
State v. Rojas
...of the Department of Corrections which would have 16 thwarted the terms of the plea). See also Williams v. Department of Corrections, 734 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Davis v. Singletary, 659 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Spencer v. State, 623 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In this resp......