MARVIN COOPER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, 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.
The trial court properly denied the petition as untimely, but erred in imposing a lien on the inmate trust account for filing fees.
Marvin Cooper sought review of the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which challenged the revocation of his condition…
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 Inmate Trust Account cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Marvin Cooper seeks review of the trial court’s dismissal, as untimely, of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he challenged the revocation of his conditional release supervision.1 Concluding that Cooper did not allege that he was entitled to immediate release should he prevail, the trial court treated his petition for writ of habeas corpus as a petition for writ of mandamus. The court then determined that the petition was untimely filed, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c). Rule 9.100(c)(2) requires petitions challenging quasi-judicial actions to be filed within thirty days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Although the trial court incorrectly converted appellant’s habeas petition into a mandamus petition, see Knowles v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 846 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heard v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 811 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), the court properly denied the petition as untimely. § 95.11(5)(f), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. However, we reverse the trial court’s order imposing a lien on appellant’s inmate trust account for filing fees. See Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2003); Heard, 811 So. 2d at 808-09; Thomas v. State, 904 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Cox v. Crosby, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D310, — So. 2d -, 2006 WL 176681 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan.26, 2006).
FARMER, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . We initially redesignated Cooper’s appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. However, based on our review of case law regarding the appropriate vehicle for seeking relief when the circuit court did not decide the prisoner’s petition for review of administrative action on the merits, we have reverted to treating this matter as an appeal. See Gibson v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 895 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Roth v. Crosby, 884 So. 2d 407, 408 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Green v. Moore, 777 So. 2d 425, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 951 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…on contends that regardless of whether appellant’s petition was properly filed as a habeas corpus action or a certiorari action, it was time-barred and the circuit court properly denied relief on procedural grounds. See Cooper v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 924 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), review pending, No. SC06-1236 (Fla. June 21, 2006). We find this reasoning to be flawed for two reasons. First, the legitimacy of applying section 95.11(5)(f) in this situation is questionable in light of Allen v. Butterworth,…
-
Carpenter v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 958 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ida Statutes (2004), based on the reasoning set forth by the First District in Martin v. Florida Parole Commission, 951 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). As did the First District in Martin, we certify conflict with Cooper v. Florida Parole Commission, 924 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), on this issue. However, in addition to denying Carpenter’s habeas petition on the timeliness issue, the trial court also denied it on the merits. After a thorough review of the record, we hold that the trial court did not depa…
-
Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 48 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 2010)…a petition challenging a criminal conviction, filed by or on behalf of a prisoner as defined in section 57.085. Judicial history with regard to the application of this statute has been checkered. Previously, in Cooper v. Florida Parole Commission, 924 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), the Fourth District held that the trial court properly denied a petition for habeas corpus as untimely, relying upon section 95.11(5)(f). However, one year later in Martin v. Florida Parole Commission, 951 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2003)
- Green v. Moore, 777 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Heard v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 811 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Roth v. Crosby, 884 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Dorrie M. Thomas v. State, 904 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Christifa A. Knowles v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 846 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Gibson v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 895 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Bill Holt Sales & Leasing, Inc. v. Cousins, 904 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)