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. StateOpinion
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.