From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Killings v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 3, 1990
567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Summary

holding that the Department of Correction's interpretation of sentences must be addressed through administrative proceedings and, if necessary, by mandamus in the circuit court

Summary of this case from Lickman v. State

Opinion

No. 89-2162.

October 3, 1990.

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for Indian River County; James B. Balsiger, Judge.

Robert E. Stone of Sullivan, Stone, Sullivan, LaJoi Thacker, Vero Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joan Fowler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


We agree that the trial court did not err in determining that appellant's motion to correct his sentence should be denied. Contrary to appellant's claim, it does not appear that his sentences on all five (5) counts were ordered to be served consecutively. Rather, it appears that Counts II, III, V and VI were ordered to be served consecutively to Count I, but concurrently with each other. See § 921.16, Fla. Stat. (1987). Furthermore, any complaint appellant may have about the Department of Corrections' interpretation of these sentences must be addressed through administrative proceedings and, if necessary, by mandamus in the circuit court.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Killings v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 3, 1990
567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

holding that the Department of Correction's interpretation of sentences must be addressed through administrative proceedings and, if necessary, by mandamus in the circuit court

Summary of this case from Lickman v. State

holding that any complaint appellant may have about the Department of Corrections' interpretation of his sentences must be addressed through administrative proceedings and, if necessary, by mandamus in the circuit court

Summary of this case from Banks v. State

holding that complaint regarding DOC interpretation of sentence must be addressed through administrative procedure and then if necessary, by mandamus directed at DOC and filed in trial court

Summary of this case from Duggan v. Department of Corrections

regarding complaint inmate might have regarding DOC's interpretation of sentence

Summary of this case from Singletary v. Benton
Case details for

Killings v. State

Case Details

Full title:JIMMY LEE KILLINGS, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Oct 3, 1990

Citations

567 So. 2d 60 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Widel v. Venz

If relief is not obtained in the administrative setting, he or she may then file a Petition for Writ of…

Widel v. Venz

Moore v. Peavey, 729 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Smith v. State, 785 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). If…