Case Name: Curtis David WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Gerald Abdul Hanif WASI, Superintendent Glades Correctional Institution, and Harry K. Singletary, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-10-16
Citations: 681 So. 2d 839
Docket Number: Nos. 96-1218, 96-1503
Parties: Curtis David WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Gerald Abdul Hanif WASI, Superintendent Glades Correctional Institution, and Harry K. Singletary, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections, Appellees.
Judges: GUNTHER, C.J., and POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 681
Pages: 839–840

Head Matter:
Curtis David WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Gerald Abdul Hanif WASI, Superintendent Glades Correctional Institution, and Harry K. Singletary, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections, Appellees.
Nos. 96-1218, 96-1503.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct. 16, 1996.
Curtis David Williams, pro se.
No brief filed for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant argues that the Department of Corrections (DOC) acted without authority in declaring his basic gain-time forfeited after he was returned to jail as a control release violator. Appellant does not dispute that the DOC had the authority to declare his incentive gain-time forfeited. We find no merit in his distinction between basic gain-time and incentive gain-time, holding that both may be subject to forfeiture by the DOC pursuant to section 944.28(1), Florida Statutes (1995).
Section 944.28(1) provides that when a control release violator is returned to jail, the DOC may revoke "all gain-time [previously] earned according to the provisions of law." As both basic and incentive gain-time derive from legislative grant, both should be considered "earned according to the provisions of law." See id.
Further, the Legislature specifically refers to all earned gain-time, whether basic or incentive, as a right — one that is granted as a matter of grace and is not automatically retained, but is subject to forfeiture. See § 944.28(2)(b), (c); Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So.2d 687 (Fla.1990); Rice v. State, 563 So.2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). As such, the DOC was within its authority and discretion to revoke Appellant's basic gain-time as well as his incentive gain-time pursuant to section 944.28(1). Accordingly, we find no error and affirm.
GUNTHER, C.J., and POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.