Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

519 So. 2d 723

Docket No. 87-1247.

Williams v. State

Michael D. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 4, 1988.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1988-02-04

Relies on 473 So. 2d 49 - Griggs v. Wainwright · 485 So. 2d 25 - Sutton v. Strickland · 498 So. 2d 679 - Brown v. Wainwright

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-02-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2009

6 state decisions

30198819902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Michael D. Williams, pro se.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Jeffrey M. Dikman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, for appellee.

¶3COWART, Judge.

¶4The trial court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by an inmate in a correctional institution which alleged that the institution failed to follow Department of Corrections rules in a proceeding resulting in the forfeiture of the inmate's gain time for fighting. The inmate appeals.

¶5The petition does not allege, nor does the record show, that the inmate exhausted his administrative remedies by way of Florida *724 Administrative Code Rule 33-3.007 (the Department's inmate grievance procedure). See Sutton v. Strickland,485 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Griggs v. Wainwright,473 So.2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Further, the petition fails to allege that the relief requested would entitle the inmate to immediate release. See Netherly v. Dugger,513 So.2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Brown v. Wainwright,498 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Therefore, the denial of the writ is

¶6AFFIRMED.

¶7DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

/519/so2d/723 · .json · Public domain