Zopf v. Singletary, No. 95-3480

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation686 So.2d 680
Parties22 Fla. L. Weekly D43 Karl B. ZOPF, Appellant, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.
Decision Date20 December 1996
Docket NumberNo. 95-3480

Page 680

686 So.2d 680
22 Fla. L. Weekly D43
Karl B. ZOPF, Appellant,
v.
Harry K. SINGLETARY, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.
No. 95-3480.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
Dec. 20, 1996.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1997.

Pro se, for Appellant.

Susan A. Maher, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Karl B. Zopf appeals from an order denying his petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Florida Department of Corrections (the Department) to award him basic gain-time pursuant to section 944.275, Florida Statutes (1993). The appellant contends that the Department erred as a matter of law in interpreting section 794.011(7), Florida Statutes (1993), so as to include him within the subsection's provisions and, on that basis alone, to classify him as ineligible for basic gain-time. Having determined that Zopf is not a person covered by subsection (7), we hold that the trial court erred in finding that Zopf had failed to show a clear legal right to be considered eligible for basic gaintime. We reverse the order and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

In February 1993, the state charged Zopf with sexual battery upon a person under 12 years of age under section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes (Count I); a lewd assault upon a child under section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes (Count II); and a lewd act in the presence

Page 681

of a child under section 800.04(4), Florida Statutes (Count III). The date of the offenses was October 8, 1992. The appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere in Count I to attempted sexual battery, a crime under section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes, as modified by the "attempt" statute, section 777.04, Florida Statutes. As the result of his plea, the charges in Counts II and III were dropped. In June 1993, the trial court sentenced Zopf to 22 years in prison.

The gain-time statute provides in pertinent part:

The department is authorized to grant deductions in sentences in the form of gain-time in order to encourage satisfactory prisoner behavior, to provide incentive for prisoners to participate in productive activities, and to reward prisoners who perform outstanding deeds or services.

§ 944.275(1), Fla. Stat. Subsection (4)(a) of that statute provides that "[a]s a means of encouraging satisfactory behavior, the department shall grant basic gain-time at the rate of 10 days for each month of each sentence imposed on a prisoner, ..."...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Fla. Dep't of Corr. v. Gould, 1D19-1149
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 10, 2022
    ...of a plainly incorrect legal principle regarding Florida's general criminal attempt statute, which first appeared in Zopf v. Singletary, 686 So.2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and was later adopted in Wilcox v. State, 783 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).[1] I. Gould pleaded no contest to attempt......
  • Jackson County Hosp. Corp. v. Aldrich, No. 1D01-4079
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 27, 2002
    ...the statute will be construed as excluding from its operation all those other persons not expressly mentioned." Zopf v. Singletary, 686 So.2d 680, 681-82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). For instance, in Finkelstein v. North Broward Hospital District, 484 So.2d 1241, 1243 (Fla.1986), the supreme court ......
  • McGhee v. State, No. 4D01-1828.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 19, 2003
    ...service and vehicle immobilization only on convictions for violations of subsection (1).2,3 See Zopf v. Singletary, 847 So.2d 502 686 So.2d 680, 681-82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (where statute specifically enumerates people covered, ordinarily statute will be construed to exclude those not Even i......
  • Careerxchange, Inc. v. Uac, No. 4D05-338.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • December 14, 2005
    ...4th DCA 2001) (the plain meaning of statutory language is the paramount consideration of statutory construction); Zopf v. Singletary, 686 So.2d 680, 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (words of common usage are to be construed as intended to have their plain, ordinary The statute is designed to allow ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Fla. Dep't of Corr. v. Gould, 1D19-1149
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 10, 2022
    ...of a plainly incorrect legal principle regarding Florida's general criminal attempt statute, which first appeared in Zopf v. Singletary, 686 So.2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and was later adopted in Wilcox v. State, 783 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).[1] I. Gould pleaded no contest to attempt......
  • Jackson County Hosp. Corp. v. Aldrich, No. 1D01-4079
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 27, 2002
    ...the statute will be construed as excluding from its operation all those other persons not expressly mentioned." Zopf v. Singletary, 686 So.2d 680, 681-82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). For instance, in Finkelstein v. North Broward Hospital District, 484 So.2d 1241, 1243 (Fla.1986), the supreme court ......
  • McGhee v. State, No. 4D01-1828.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 19, 2003
    ...service and vehicle immobilization only on convictions for violations of subsection (1).2,3 See Zopf v. Singletary, 847 So.2d 502 686 So.2d 680, 681-82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (where statute specifically enumerates people covered, ordinarily statute will be construed to exclude those not Even i......
  • Fla. Dep't of Corr. v. Gould, 1D19-1149
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 12, 2022
    ...cases had adopted and relied upon the decisions abandoned in Wilcox v. State, 783 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) and Zopf v. Singletary, 686 So.2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), making it glaringly obvious that a newborn conflict was created. ("In deciding to hear this case en banc and overruling......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT