Opinion
Case No. 3D06-1859.
Opinion filed October 4, 2006.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Diane Ward, Judge, Lower Tribunal Nos. 01-25640, 01-26153.
Roberto Borroto, in proper person.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee.
Before CORTIÑAS, ROTHENBERG, and LAGOA, JJ.
The defendant, Roberto Borroto ("Borroto"), appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to correct illegal sentences in case numbers 01-25640 and 01-26153, alleging that he has not received the appropriate court ordered credit for time served. As to these claims, we affirm, as the record refutes the claims. Borroto also appeals the denial of his claim that he has not received all the credit which he asserts he is owed in case numbers 82-11444(A) and 94-20198. As we agree with the trial court that these claims were not properly before the trial court, we affirm the order denying relief and do so without prejudice for the defendant to seek administratively the time for which he contends he is entitled, and if unsuccessful and after exhausting his administrative remedies, to file a petition for writ of mandamus under the correct case numbers so that they may be filed in the correct criminal division(s).
The record reflects that Borroto was sentenced to nine months in the Dade County jail in case number 01-25640 on July 22, 2002, and to nine months in the Dade County jail in case number 01-26153 on August 9, 2002. In each instance, the trial court ordered and the defendant received all credit for time served. The State concedes that Borroto has satisfied the sentence requirements in both cases, as he was entitled to 332 days for time served in case number 01-26153 and 337 days for time served in case number 01-25640.
Borroto, however, also claims that the time he served in each of these cases also should be applied to a 1982 conviction, which appears to be the basis for his current incarceration due to a parole violation. As Borroto claims that the Department of Corrections has failed to award him a credit for time served in this case, he is required to seek redress administratively with the Department of Corrections. After exhausting his administrative remedies, if Borroto is unsatisfied with the outcome, he may seek judicial relief by filing a petition for writ of mandamus under the 1982 case number, where it will be directed to the correct criminal division for consideration of his claims. See Cordova v. State, 855 So. 2d 216, 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (holding that defendant seeking credit for time served must exhaust administrative remedies within the Department of Corrections prior to seeking judicial relief); Jones v. State, 843 So. 2d 316, 316-17 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Grant v. State, 837 So. 2d 1075, 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We note that based upon the attachments to the trial court's order, Borroto has sought administrative review regarding the awarding of credit for time served in the 82-11444(A) case, but made no claim regarding the time he spent in jail in 2002.
According to "Exhibit 2" of the trial court's order, in the grievance filed by Borroto with the Department of Corrections, he asserts that he did not receive credit for time served from April 8, 1983 to March 3, 1987, from May 10, 1995 to June 18, 1996, and from August 1994 to May 10, 1995. None of these time periods involve the time frame in which Borroto was incarcerated in case numbers 01-25640 and 01-26153.
Affirmed.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.