MICHAEL W. MOORE, SECRETARY FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PETITIONER,
v.
ANTHONY BURNS, 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.
Trial judges lack the authority to regulate the treatment of prison inmates, including decisions about their hair length.
The Department of Corrections (DOC) sought certiorari review of a trial court order that prohibited the DOC from cutting an inmate's hair for religiou…
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 Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Michael W. Moore, Secretary, State of Florida Department of Corrections (DOC), seeks certiorari review of a trial court order which prohibits the DOC from cutting respondent Anthony Burns’ hair due to religious reasons. Because the trial court is without jurisdiction and lacks the authority to regulate the treatment of prison inmates, we grant the DOC’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari and quash the trial court’s order. Time after time after time, this Court has made it clear that trial judges lack the authority to regulate the treatment of prison inmates; particularly as it relates to inmates’ hair length. See Moore v. Mills, 789 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Moore v. Lowery, 758 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Moore v. Habibullah, 739 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Singletary v. Duggins, 724 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
In Moore v. Mills, this Court unequivocally stated that “[t]he cutting of hair and beards are clearly conditions which the DOC set for inmate confinements, and to interfere with those conditions exceeds judicial authority.” Moore v. Mills, 789 So. 2d at 1160. Trial courts lack the authority to regulate the treatment and placement of a sentenced defendant in the prison system. See Singletary v. Acosta, 659 So. 2d 449, 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Accordingly, we grant the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and quash the order. Petition granted; order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Daron Mikle, 855 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…em. Like the Department of Juvenile Justice in J.R., the DOC has standing to bring this appeal. On the merits, we conclude that the trial court improvidently entered the Order under review for the reasons expressed by this Court in Moore v. Burns, 796 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“Trial courts lack the authority to regulate the treatment and placement of a sentenced defendant in the prison system.”). Accordingly, the Order is vacated. Reversed.…
-
Akeem Muhammad v. State, 872 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Moore v. Burns, 796 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). GUNTHER, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
Cuesta v. State, 929 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…ffirm the finding of criminal contempt, we strike the special conditions added to the sentence imposed. We do so “[b]ecause the trial court is without jurisdiction and lacks the authority to regulate the treatment of prison inmates.” Moore v. Burns, 796 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Singletary v. Acosta, 659 So. 2d 449, 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“[T]he trial court wholly lacks authority to regulate the treatment and placement of a sentenced defendant in the prison system.”). See also Moore v. Peavey, 729 So. 2…
Authorities Cited
- Singletary v. Lancy Duggins, 724 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Howard v. State, 659 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Singletary v. Acosta, 659 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Greene v. State, 739 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Moore v. Lowery, 758 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Moore v. Mills, 789 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)