JAMES TERRY, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF THE 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.
James Terry, an inmate, petitioned for certiorari to challenge a lien placed on his inmate trust account by the Department of Corrections. The Florida First District Court of Appeal held that no lien is authorized on inmate accounts in cases involving loss of gain time, and quashed the order imposing the lien.
The court held that no lien is authorized on an inmate account when the action involves the loss of gain time, rejecting the Department of Corrections' argument that recent statutory changes authorize such liens. The order imposing the lien was quashed insofar as it upheld the lien.
[1] A challenge to a disciplinary report resulting in the loss of gain time is a collateral criminal proceeding excluded from the prisoner indigency statute.
[2] No lien is authorized on an inmate account when the action involves the loss of gain time.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So.2d 361 (Fla.2003), the Florida Supreme Court held that a challenge, such as the one in this case, to a disciplinary report which results in the loss of gain time is a "collateral criminal proceeding" excluded from the prisoner indigency statute”
Establishes that challenges to disciplinary reports involving loss of gain time are excluded from the indigency statute, limiting lien authorization
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Terry, an inmate, had a lien placed on his inmate trust account by the Department of Corrections. The lien resulted from a disciplinary report t…
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 Prisoner Indigency Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By petition for writ of certiorari addressed to the Order Denying Petitioner’s Complaint for Writ of Mandamus and Order Denying Supplement Petition for Modification of Clerk’s Certificate of Indigence, James Terry seeks removal of a lien placed on his inmate trust account. This court has jurisdiction to review the final order of the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(B).* See Higueras v. Crosby, 924 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (explaining that a “petitioner has an adequate remedy by raising” a challenge to an order imposing a lien on an inmate trust account “on appeal from a final order in the circuit court case”). We quash the order in part.
In Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla.2003), the Florida Supreme Court held that a challenge, such as the one in this case, to a disciplinary report which results in the loss of gain time is a “collateral criminal proceeding” excluded from the prisoner indigency statute (section 57.085, Florida Statutes). Id. at 367. In Cason v. Crosby, 892 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), this court explained that, as a consequence, no lien is authorized on an inmate account when the action involves the loss of gain time. Id. at 537. The Department of Corrections argues that, due to recent changes to sections 28.246(4) and 57.082(5), Florida Statutes, liens on inmate accounts are now authorized.
However, this argument was rejected by this court in Wagner v. McDonough, 927 So. 2d 216, 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
Accordingly, the order under review is quashed insofar as the order upholds the lien, and the case is remanded with directions that the trial court order the Department of Corrections to dissolve the lien and direct reimbursement of any funds that have been withdrawn to satisfy the lien.
Reversed and remanded.
ERVIN, BENTON, and BROWNING, JJ., concur. *
Review of the indigency order by certiorari is proper because the whole case is before the court on review of a final order of the lower tribunal. See Flowers v. McDonough, 932 So. 2d 617, 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (reviewing by certiorari a final order of the trial court denying petition for writ of mandamus on the merits and removing a lien imposed on the petitioner’s inmate account); McCaskill v. McDonough, 933 So. 2d 650, 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (same).
However, when the case concludes in the lower tribunal on grounds other than the merits, review is proper by appeal of the order concluding the case. See Lopez v. McDonough, No. 1D05-4433, 935 So. 2d 47, 2006 WL 2056418 (Fla. 1st DCA July 26, 2006) (explaining that when the lower court dismissed the petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus because the issue was moot, review of an indigency order in the case was properly obtained by appealing the order dismissing the petitioner’s mandamus petition); see also Green v. Moore, 777 So. 2d 425, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (explaining that "review of a circuit court order regarding a prisoner disciplinary matter [i]s properly by certiorari;” however, when "the circuit court proceeding is concluded on grounds other than the merits,” "the proper method to review the circuit court's decision” is by appeal, rather than certiorari).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. McDONOUGH, 946 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…r which authorised imposition of the lien. This court has repeatedly recognized that statutory authority does not exist for the circuit court to impose a lien to recover costs and fees in proceedings of this nature. Id.; see also Terry v. McDonough, 935 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Rodriguez v. McDonough, 932 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Wagner v. McDonough, 927 So. 2d 216, 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). WEBSTER, BENTON, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.…
-
Vega v. McDONOUGH, 946 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…e petition with regard to the disciplinary report, but conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by imposing a lien against Vega’s account. See Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla.2003); Terry v. McDonough, 935 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., ERVIN, III, RICHARD W., Senior Judge, concur.…
-
Booker Mayfield v. McDONOUGH, 940 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…nmate’s earned gain time, and thus the length of the inmate’s sentence, is a collateral criminal proceeding exempt from the Prisoner Indigency Statute. We agree. See Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361, 366-367 (Fla.2003); see also Terry v. McDonough, 935 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Cason v. Crosby, 892 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Therefore, we grant the petition for cer-tiorari in part, deny in part, and quash the trial court’s order imposing a lien on petitioner’s inmate account. Accordingly, we als…
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 (11 total)
- Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2003)
- Cason v. Crosby, 892 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Green v. Moore, 777 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- C.R. v. State, 927 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Wagner v. McDONOUGH, 927 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Frederico A. Higueras v. Crosby, 924 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- L.M.C. and A.O. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 935 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Lopez v. McDONOUGH, 935 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Flowers v. McDONOUGH, 932 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Wright v. State, 933 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)