RALPH M. HARDY, APPELLANT,
v.
HON. TAYLOR DOUGLAS, SHERIFF, PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Inmate Hardy's removal as jail trusty for disciplinary violations and subsequent ineligibility for reappointment under a post-sentencing policy does not violate his constitutional rights because he had no vested right to trusty status and the rule applies equally to all inmates.
An inmate has no constitutional right to be appointed or reappointed as a jail trusty, and a policy denying reappointment to those previously removed for disciplinary reasons does not unconstitutionally enhance his sentence.
[1] An inmate has no vested constitutional right to appointment or reappointment as a jail trusty, and a policy denying reappointment to those previously removed for discipli…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHardy was serving three consecutive one-year terms in Putnam County Jail and worked as a jail trusty earning jail credit. After being found guilty of …
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 Rights of Inmates cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Hardy is serving three consecutive one-year terms in the Putnam County Jail. Prior to committing a disciplinary offense, Hardy was a jail trusty and earned jail credit for that service. Upon being found guilty of a disciplinary violation, he was removed as trusty. He reapplied to become a trusty after serving his disciplinary penalty and he was rejected because he had previously been “revoked” as trusty. Hardy claims that since this policy of not permitting one who has been removed as trusty to be restored to that capacity was implemented after his sentence began, he has been denied his constitutional rights because “it enhances his prison sentence.” The trial court rejected his claim and so do we.
Once Hardy was found guilty of disciplinary violations, he was removed as trusty. While he could reapply after completing his punishment, he had no right, constitutional or otherwise, to be reappointed. His status at that point was the same as other inmates who sought to become trusty. He was bound by the rules then in effect. These rules now provide that once you are removed as trusty for disciplinary reasons, you will not be reappointed. These rules, applicable to everyone, should also be applicable to Hardy. He was not removed from his trusty status because of a rule change, he was removed because he broke the rules of the institution.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (49 total)
-
Nelson v. State, 760 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…e 887 days of jail time credit. In affirming the circuit court’s order, we observe that appellant failed to affirmatively allege in his motion where in the record information can be found demonstrating his entitlement to relief. See Toro v. State, 719 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167, n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In accordance with State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998), the judge in his order wrote that he had reviewed the court file. We agree with the Third District t…
-
Daily v. State, 750 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…wever, contrary to the pleading requirements of State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998), appellant’s motion for jail time credit does not affirmatively allege that the court records demonstrate entitlement to relief. See also Toro v. State, 719 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (affirming denial of Rule 3.800 motion without prejudice to file a new motion alleging “where in the record the information can be located and explaining] how the record demonstrates entitlement to the relief requested”). As…
-
Skullestad v. State, 790 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ant alleges that he had not received all of the credit due in a 1990 case and a 1992 case for time served in prison, jail and on probation. Contrary to the pleading requirements of State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998), and Toro v. State, 719 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), appellant’s motion did not identify where in the record information showing entitlement to the credit sought could be located. Denial of appellant’s motion should have been without prejudice to appellant’s right to refile…
Previewing 3 of 49 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence