COREY STANLEY, APPELLANT;
v.
MICHAEL MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A prisoner appealed the dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandamus for failure to comply with indigency provisions. The court held that because the petition alleged facts potentially entitling him to immediate release, it should have been treated as a habeas corpus petition, which is constitutionally exempt from filing fees.
The petition should have been treated as a habeas corpus petition, which is constitutionally exempt from all court costs and filing fees under Article I, Section 18 of the Florida Constitution. The order dismissing the petition was reversed, and the case was remanded with directions to treat it as a habeas corpus petition and transfer it to the appropriate circuit court.
[1] A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is constitutionally exempt from all court costs and filing fees.
[2] If a petition for writ of mandamus alleges facts that could entitle the petitioner to immediate release from incarceration, it should be treated as a petition for a writ…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The writ of habeas corpus shall be grantable of right, freely and without cost.”
Establishes the constitutional exemption of habeas corpus from filing fees and costs under Article I, Section 18 of the Florida Constitution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Stanley, a prisoner, filed a petition in the Second Judicial Circuit that alleged facts which might entitle him to immediate release from in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from an order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus because he failed to comply with the provisions of section 57.085, Florida Statutes (1997), which governs determinations of indigency for prisoners in civil actions. Because appellant’s petition alleged facts which at least arguably might entitle him to Immediate release, his petition should have been treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which is constitutionally exempt from all court costs and filing fees. See Art I, § 18, Fla. Const. (“The writ of habeas corpus shall be grantable of right, freely and without cost.”); Steele v. State, 733 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(“If, upon the filing of a mandamus petition, it appears that appellant would be entitled to immediate release from incarceration if properly credited with the time he is seeking, the petition should be treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.”).1 While the circuit court could have dismissed the petition, even if treated as a habeas corpus petition, on grounds that appellant should have filed the petition in the Tenth Judicial Circuit where he is incarcerated, rather than the Second Judicial Circuit where the petition was actually filed, see § 79.09, Fla. Stat. (1997); Alday v. Singletary, 719 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), we conclude that, in the interests of expediency, this case should be remanded to the circuit court for immediate transfer to the appropriate court. See Lewis v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 697 So. 2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(revers-ing order denying habeas corpus petition filed in wrong court and remanding with directions that circuit court transfer petition to court having jurisdiction over correctional facility in which prisoner was housed). We, therefore, reverse the order dismissing appellant’s petition and remand with directions that the circuit court treat appellant’s petition as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and immediately transfer it to the circuit court having jurisdiction over the correctional facility in which appellant is currently housed.
BARFIELD, C.J., ERVIN and WOLF, JJ., CONCUR. . We express no opinion on the merits of appellant's allegations that he is entitled to immediate release. That is properly first determined by the circuit court which will entertain his petition.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heard v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 811 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
-
Gillard v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 784 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…t the petition. Because Petitioner claimed an entitlement to immediate release, the appropriate vehicle for raising the claim is a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the county in which he is currently incarcerated. See, e.g., Stanley v. Moore, 744 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Steele v. State, 733 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); sec. 79.09, Fla. Stat. (1999). Thus, because Petitioner was not incarcerated in Leon County, the Circuit Court of Leon County lacked territorial jurisdiction over this action…
-
Marc v. Miller, 153 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…he makes in the present case. The Fifth Circuit might have dismissed the ha-beas petition with leave to file a mandamus petition, or simply transferred the petition to the Second Circuit for adjudication as a mandamus petition. Cf. Stanley v. Moore, 744 So. 2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (reversing the dismissal of a mandamus petition and remanding with directions for the circuit court to treat the petition as a habeas petition and transfer it to the appropriate court). All along, the proper vehicle for app…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lewis v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 697 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Glade Corr. Inst. v. Brownell, 719 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Malmquist v. State, 733 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)