Opinion ID: 1819049
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the proper venue

Text: As for the proper venue for filing a challenge to a sentence-reducing credit determination by the Department, the question is one of venue, not jurisdiction: Venue is one thing; jurisdiction is another. They are not synonymous. Venue concerns `the privilege of being accountable to a Court in a particular location.' Jurisdiction is `the power to act,' the authority to adjudicate the subject matter. Williams v. Ferrentino, 199 So.2d 504, 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). Although all circuit courts in the state have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, see art. V, § 5(a), Fla. Const., the question here is where in the state a party should be held to answer such a petition, which is a question of venue. Before a court can determine where a petition should be filed, however, the court first must determine against whom it should be filed. The First District Court of Appeal addressed this matter in the context of a prisoner's challenge to a sentence-reducing credit determination by the Department: The Florida Department of Corrections is charged with calculating an inmate's sentence and administering the award and forfeiture of gain time for, among other things, revocation of conditional release and prison disciplinary proceedings. In contrast, the Florida Parole Commission is the agency authorized to set presumptive parole release dates and to determine whether to admit an inmate to conditional release or whether an inmate who violates parole or conditional release should be returned to incarceration. Burgess v. Crosby, 870 So.2d 217, 219 n. 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The district court explained further: While issues concerning jail time credit are logically brought to the attention of the sentencing court, a proceeding which challenges the revocation of conditional release and the subsequent forfeiture of gain time . . . has to do with the inmate's behavior on release and the penalty imposed by forfeiture of gain time after the revocation. In such a case, the Florida Parole Commission and the Department of Corrections, rather than the prosecuting authority, would be the appropriate respondents. Similarly, a prison disciplinary action which results in the forfeiture of gain time has to do with the inmate's behavior in prison, not the original offense for which the inmate was sentenced. The Department of Corrections is the appropriate respondent in such a case. Likewise, Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-601.101 allows the Department to make incentive gain time awards so that inmates may be recognized for their individual effort in work, vocational, educational and self-betterment programs. This . . . concerns an inmate's behavior in prison and does not necessarily concern the original offense for which the inmate was sentenced or the court which conducted those proceedings. Burgess, 870 So.2d at 220 (footnote omitted). Thus, the Department is the proper respondent in a mandamus proceeding challenging a sentence-reducing credit determination rendered by the Department. As to where in the state the Department should be held to answer such a petition, Florida's district courts are in disagreement. [7] Because no specific venue statute addresses mandamus petitions, [8] the general venue statute is applicable in such cases: Actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located. § 47.011, Fla. Stat. (2005). This statute is consonant with the common law home venue privilege, which governs suits against government entities in Florida: It has long been the established common law of Florida that venue in civil actions brought against the state or one of its agencies or subdivisions, absent waiver or exception, properly lies in the county where the state, agency, or subdivision, maintains it principal headquarters. Such a rule promotes orderly and uniform handling of state litigation and helps to minimize expenditure of public funds and manpower. Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n, 354 So.2d 362, 363-64 (Fla.1977) (citations omitted). Absent waiver or application of an identified exception, the home venue privilege appears to be an absolute right. Jacksonville Elec. Auth. v. Clay County Util. Auth., 802 So.2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Fla. Dept. of Children & Families v. Sun-Sentinel, Inc., 865 So.2d 1278 (Fla.2004). The Department, which is the defendant in sentence-reducing credit cases, is headquartered, or resides, in Leon County for purposes of the general venue statute. Further, it is the Department that calculates inmates' sentence-reducing credits and applies them to their sentences, [9] and because the final sentence-reducing decision and act are made by the Department, the cause of action under the statute reasonably may be said to accrue in Leon County. And finally, to the extent that language in section 47.011 reasonably may be read as being consistent with the home venue privilege, that language must be so read. [10] Thus, under both section 47.011 and the home venue privilege, the circuit court in Leon County is the proper venue for such cases if the prisoner has exhausted administrative remedies and is not alleging entitlement to immediate release. [11] In the present case, the State argues that the Court should overrule Schmidt because language in the decision may be read as authorizing prisoners to challenge sentence-reducing credit determinations via actions filed in the sentencing court, rather than in the circuit court in Leon County, where the Department is located. We disagree. Although the Court in Schmidt did state that an inmate's petition for writ of mandamus challenging a loss of gain time is a collateral criminal proceeding and not a civil lawsuit, 878 So.2d at 361, the Court did so in the context of the prisoner indigency statute, and the statement, which was necessitated by the structure of the statute itself, is limited to that context. [12] As drafted, there is only one exception to the prepayment and lien requirements of the prisoner indigency statute: This section does not apply to a criminal proceeding or a collateral criminal proceeding. § 57.085(10), Fla. Stat. (2005). In order to give effect to the legislative intent underlying the statute, which was to diminish frivolous civil filings but not to diminish legitimate challenges to sentence-reducing credit determinations, the Court in Schmidt was constrained to hold that the statutory exception was applicable to Schmidt's mandamus petition challenging the forfeiture of gain time. To hold otherwise would have violated legislative intent. To clarify this matter, we hold that the proper venue for a prisoner's challenge to a sentence-reducing credit determination by the Department, where the prisoner has exhausted administrative remedies and is not alleging entitlement to immediate release, continues to be in circuit court in Leon County, where the Department is located.