REY
v.
STATE
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.
A defendant's claim regarding jail credit interpretation by the Department of Corrections is not cognizable in a motion for clarification and must first be addressed through administrative remedies before judicial relief may be sought.
[1] A claim that the Department of Corrections incorrectly interpreted sentences is not cognizable in a motion for clarification.
[2] An inmate must exhaust administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections regarding gain time or credit owed before pursuing judicial remedies.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a defendant's 'claim that the [Department of Corrections] incorrectly interpreted his sentences is not cognizable in a motion for clarification'”
Court citing Watkins v. State to establish the rule that jail credit disputes must follow administrative exhaustion procedures.
Maximiliano Rey appealed from an order denying his motion for clarification of jail credit. Rey sought clarification regarding the calculation of jail…
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 Discrepancy Between Oral And Written Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Maximiliano Rey appeals from an order denying his motion for clarification of jail credit. We affirm without prejudice for Rey to first exhaust his administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections and, if unsatisfied with the outcome, to file a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department.1
See Watkins v. State, 14 So. 3d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (explaining that a defendant’s “claim that the [Department of Corrections] incorrectly interpreted his sentences is not cognizable in a motion for clarification” (citing Edward v. State,
966 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007))); Dunbar v. State, 225 So. 3d 971,
972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“As an inmate in the custody of the [Department of
Corrections], Dunbar must fully exhaust his administrative remedies regarding gain time or credit owed within the [Department of Corrections] before he is entitled to pursue judicial remedies.”); LaFerte-Diaz v. Dep't of Corr., 187 So. 3d
908, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“If after exhausting his administrative remedies,
Diaz is not afforded the relief sought, he may file a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Department [of Corrections] to credit him with the full amount of jail time awarded by the trial court.”).
We further affirm without prejudice for Rey to raise a claim asserting a discrepancy between the oral and written sentence by filing a motion pursuant to
Rule 3.800(a). See Brown v. State, 225 So. 3d 319, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Dunbar v. State, 225 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Brown v. State, 225 So. 3d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Juwan T. Edward v. State, 966 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Watkins v. State, 14 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Leonel LaFERTE-Diaz v. Dep't OF Corr., 187 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)