Winkler v. Moore4/25/2002
Petition for rehearing filed May 20, 2002. Rehearing denied September 25, 2002.
MARK D. WINKLER, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS,
CHRISTOPHER HALL, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS, JAMES CROSS, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS,
Baya Harrison, III, Monticello, Florida, for Petitioners Winkler and Cross; Christopher Hall, pro se, Daytona Beach, Florida, and John C. Schaible, Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc., Gainesville, Florida, for Petitioner Hall, Petitioners. Susan A. Maher, Deputy General Counsel, and Judy Bone, Assistant General Counsel, Sheron L. Wells, Assistant General Counsel, and Kim M. Fluharty, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, Florida; and William L. Camper, General Counsel, and Bradley R. Bischoff, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, for Respondents.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
Mark D. Winkler and Christopher Hall petition this Court for writs of habeas corpus. James Cross petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus. This Court has consolidated their cases and hereby denies Winkler's and Hall's petitions in full, and denies Cross's petition in part and grants it in part as further set forth below.
BACKGROUND
In Gomez v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1998), this Court addressed gain time in the context of prisoners who were never awarded certain types of overcrowding credits but should have been awarded such credits. This Court held that the subsequent revisions in the prison overcrowding statutes which effectively made the petitioners ineligible to receive any credits constituted an ex post facto violation. In that case, the Florida Department of Corrections (hereinafter the Department) provided proposed relief charts for six "Offender Groups" which were groups of inmates categorized by offense type, program eligibility, and offense date. Only three groups (Groups 3, 4 and 5) were actually represented by a petitioner in Gomez, and therefore this Court declined to address the other groups (1, 2, and 6). Now that petitioners representing the remaining groups are before this Court, we hereby set forth the overcrowding gain time awards for the three remaining groups as well. Further, as a means of finalizing and setting forth the proper Gomez awards for all groups, the appendices to this opinion (A and B) contain charts for determining the proper overcrowding awards for all six groups.
PETITIONER WINKLER: OFFENDER GROUP 1
Petitioner Winkler was convicted of three counts of DUI manslaughter and one count of leaving the scene of an accident involving death. The offenses were committed on April 9, 1985. At the time of his offenses, Winkler was eligible for emergency gain time. The Department never awarded any emergency gain time to any inmates prior to Gomez. Instead, and as set forth in Gomez, it utilized a series of new overcrowding gain time statutes. Each new statute essentially superseded the previous one. Winkler was awarded credits under all the programs enacted after emergency gain time. Thus, he received 720 days of administrative gain time and 1,860 days of provisional credits and when the Department stopped awarding provisional credits in 1991, the Florida Parole Commission began awarding him control release credits.
In 1993, the Legislature canceled all administrative gain time and provisional credits but Winkler retained his control release eligibility. Eventually, however, due
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|