Florida Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the Courts of Florida - unoffical reports - Opinions

ROMINGER LEGAL

Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This court case was taken from the Florida Court's web site. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
CLAYTON WHISNER,
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
Appellant,
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE,
CASE NO. 1D00-4462
Appellee.
___________________________/
Opinion filed December 24, 2003.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
L. Ralph Smith, Judge.
Appellant, pro se.
Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel; Carolyn J. Mosley, Assistant General Counsel,
Tallahassee, for Appellee.
BENTON, J.
Clayton Whisner appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of
mandamus, arguing that the Department of Corrections illegally forfeited his
overcrowding credits after he escaped from confinement. We affirm.

Overcrowding credits are a species of gain-time. See State v. Lancaster, 687
So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 1997) (rejecting the argument that "gain time" could not be
construed to include overcrowding credits). Prior to Lancaster, the Department of
Corrections (DOC) had not treated most types of overcrowding credits as gain-time
but, in the words of our supreme court, the Lancaster decision "corrected that
misinterpretation and made clear that the Department always had the authority to forfeit
[overcrowding] credits." Mayes v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 967, 973 (Fla. 2002). The
supreme court explained that "the Lancaster decision did not create the statutory
authority for the forfeiture of overcrowding gain time upon supervision revocation.
That authority has been in effect since 1988, and it has provided for the forfeiture of
`all gain time' upon conditional release supervision revocation." Id.
Pointing out that his offenses were committed before 1988, Mr. Whisner argues
that the present case is distinguishable from Mayes v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 967 (Fla.
2002), on this basis. While the language in section 944.28(1), Florida Statutes,
authorizing forfeiture of all gain-time upon the revocation of a prisoner's conditional
release did not take effect until 1988, the language in section 944.28(1) authorizing
forfeiture of all gain-time upon a prisoner's escape has been in effect since 1963. See
ch. 63-243, § 2, at 548-49, Laws of Fla. ("When a prisoner escapes . . . the director
2

shall, without notice or hearing, declare a forfeiture of all gain time earned . . . prior to
such escape.").
Appellant's offenses occurred long after 1963, when DOC was originally
authorized (and at that time required) to forfeit gain-time an escaping prisoner had
accrued before the escape. DOC forfeited Mr. Whisner's overcrowding credits
because he was convicted of escape, not because his supervision was revoked. See
§ 944.28(1), Fla. Stat. (1987) ("If a prisoner is convicted of escape . . . the department
may, without notice or hearing, declare a forfeiture of all gain-time earned . . . prior to
such escape.").
Affirmed.
ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.
3

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE