Opinion
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-00226-MP-EMT
10-31-2012
DAN SCHMIDT, Petitioner, v. PAM BONDI, Respondent.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Doc. 36, a renewed motion by petitioner for release pending the resolution of his habeas petition. The petitioner argues that McNeil v. Canty, 12 So.3d 215 (Fla., 2009) "overruled almost 30 years of prior decisions and finally recognized that Florida's Mandatory Conditional Release Supervision is part of an offender's sentence," and thus that "the Florida Supreme Court preordained the unconstitutionality of these two statutes under Canty." Petitioner is wrong in this regard. The Canty court did not rule that DOC cannot revoke gain time or re-imprison violators of supervision. Instead, the Court simply held that "DOC cannot require an inmate to serve more incarceration time than imposed by the trial judge. Upon revocation of conditional release, DOC must retroactively credit prison time served on any concurrent sentence as prison time served on all concurrent sentences." Canty, 12 So.3d at 217. Thus, even in Canty the DOC is still the entity which revokes conditional release and gain time and sends violators back to prison. Accordingly, the motion at Doc. 36 is denied.
_________________
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge