LARRY BEAMON, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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.
The court dismissed Beamon's certiorari petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding because it was filed one day late, and the court lacks authority to grant belated appellate review in civil proceedings.
A certiorari petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding must be timely filed, and the court lacks authority to grant belated appellate review in civil proceedings even with application of the mailbox rule.
[1] The mailbox rule applies to certiorari petitions, but does not cure a petition filed one day late, and appellate courts lack authority to grant belated review in civil pr…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLarry Beamon challenged the outcome of a prison disciplinary proceeding by petitioning for extraordinary relief. His petition was filed one day late, …
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 Extraordinary Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Larry Beamon petitions this court for certiorari review of an order denying his petition for extraordinary relief, in which he challenged the outcome of a prison disciplinary proceeding. We dismiss the petition based on Beamon’s failure to timely invoke this court’s jurisdiction.
In determining the timeliness of his petition, Beamon is entitled to the benefit of the mailbox rule, as announced in Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1992). However, even with the application of the mailbox rule, Beamon’s petition was filed with this court one day late. In response to an order to show cause, Beamon alleges that the delay in filing the petition resulted from his inability to obtain timely notary services. Respondent contests this claim, but we find it unnecessary to resolve this factual dispute. It is undisputed that Beamon’s petition was not timely filed, and because-the proceedings below were civil in nature, this court lacks the authority to grant belated appellate review. See Hollingsworth v. Szczecina, 731 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Rather, Beamon’s appropriate remedy in this instance is to petition the trial court for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. Id. at 791; see also Powell v. Florida Department of Corrections, 727 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
DISMISSED.
KAHN, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Powell v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr. & Fla. Parole Comm'n, 727 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Hollingsworth v. Szczecina, 731 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)