ELI M. FRIEDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF 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.
The court held that a defendant must exhaust administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections before seeking judicial relief for incorrect prison credit calculations.
The defendant appealed the denial of his motion to correct prison credit, arguing he was entitled to an additional 20 days. This time period was spent…
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 Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
The Defendant, Eli M. Friedman (“Friedman”), appeals from the trial court’s February 3, 2015 order denying his Motion to Correct Award of Prior Prison Credit.
Friedman argues that he is entitled to an additional 20 days of credit for time served,1 from September 13, 2012 through October 3, 2012. This time period, however, concerns the dates he spent in jail awaiting to be transported to prison after being sentenced on September 13, 2012. The State is correct that Friedman must first raise this issue with the Department of Corrections and “may only request judicial relief after exhausting administrative remedies.” Hidalgo v. State, 729 So.2d 984, 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“The Department of Corrections is responsible for computing [an inmate’s] credit for time spent in county jail after sentencing, while awaiting transfers to a drug program or a state prison. If the postsentence credit is incorrect, [the inmate] should pursue his administrative remedies, and then seek a writ of mandamus against the department in the circuit court, if dissatisfied with the outcome.” (quoting Washington v. State, 662 *1055So.2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (citation omitted))).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order. Our affirmance in this case is without prejudice to pursue such an administrative remedy.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hidalgo v. State, 729 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Washington v. State, 662 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)