ALPHONSIA CANTY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Habeas corpus relief is unavailable when the petitioner fails to demonstrate probable cause that detention is without lawful authority, but the petitioner may seek administrative relief when the sentencing court intended concurrent sentences.
[1] The petitioner in a habeas corpus action bears the burden of proving probable cause that he or she is detained without lawful authority; failure to provide such evidence…
[2] When a sentencing court intends sentences to run concurrently but administrative records do not reflect this intention, the petitioner's remedy is administrative relief f…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The writ of habeas corpus is available only if the petitioner shows probable cause to believe that he or she is detained without lawful authority.”
Court citing Robenson v. McNeil regarding the standard for habeas corpus relief
Appellant sought habeas corpus relief claiming he was entitled to immediate release. Evidence indicated the sentencing court intended for his five-yea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concurrent Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus because Appellant has failed to provide evidence that he is entitled to immediate release. See Robenson v. McNeil, 39 So. 3d 350, 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“The writ of habeas corpus is available only if the petitioner shows probable cause to believe that he or she is detained without lawful authority.”). However, Appellant has presented evidence that the sentencing court intended for his sentences to run concurrently, including a 2011 response from the State filed in this Court agreeing with his contention. We also agree. Because Appellant’s five-year sentence was to run concurrently with his hundred-year sentence, and “the composite term of [both these] sentences imposed” were to run concurrently with “any sentence now serving,” his hundred-year
sentence is also concurrent with the ninety-nine-year sentence that had previously been imposed and that Appellant had been serving in Case No. 76-1902 at the time the sentences were imposed in Case No. 83-3297. Appellant’s only remedy at this time is to seek administrative relief from the Department based on the State’s 2011 concession and this opinion.
AFFIRMED. WINOKUR and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________