A. M. v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJanuary 17, 2020
Docket2D18-4830
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
A.M., )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D18-4830
)
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
Appellee. )
)
Opinion filed January 17, 2020.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas
County; James V. Pierce, Judge
Robert Dillinger, Public Defender,
and Theresa Fifield, Assistant Public
Defender, Clearwater, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline,
Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for
Appellee.
MORRIS, Judge.
A.M. appeals the order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Below he sought relief on the basis that his classification status in the Florida
Department of Corrections is preventing him from being eligible for work release, and he
asserted a claim of newly discovered evidence in an effort to withdraw his plea for the
crime that he claims is affecting his classification status. We affirm the denial of the
petition for writ of habeas corpus, but we do so without prejudice to A.M.'s right to seek
review in the circuit court of the county in which he is incarcerated after he has
exhausted his administrative remedies.1 Cf. Milan v. State, 207 So. 3d 232, 232 (Fla.
2d DCA 2015) (table).
Affirmed.
LaROSE and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
1See Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-601.210(2)(h) (providing in relevant part that
where an inmate has been "previously convicted or adjudicated delinquent for any crime
where a sex act was intended, attempted, or completed," with a few exceptions not
applicable here, the inmate "shall not be eligible for assignment to community or
minimum custody status unless he has previously successfully completed the mentally
disordered sex offender program prior to the repeal of Chapter 917, F.S." (emphasis
added)). As noted by the State and as the record before this court indicates,
adjudication was withheld on the charge which A.M. claims is affecting his classification
status.
-2-