JOSEPH O'CONNER, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY, 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.
A disabled prisoner sought a writ of mandamus to obtain gain-time credits equal to the maximum he could have earned, and challenged a lien imposed on his trust account for filing fees. The trial court denied the mandamus petition and upheld the fee lien, but the appellate court vacated the lien and remanded for reimbursement, finding that the lien was improperly imposed given the case's potential impact on the petitioner's sentence length.
The court denied certiorari review of the trial court's denial of mandamus, finding that petitioner failed to establish deprivation of due process or that the court departed from the essential requirements of law. However, the court vacated the March 11, 2005 order imposing the lien on petitioner's trust account because the length of petitioner's prison sentence would have been directly affected had his gain-time argument been successful, and remanded for reimbursement of funds withdrawn pursuant to the lien.
[1] A prisoner is not entitled to gain time awards for activities that he or she is unable to perform due to disability.
[2] A petition for writ of mandamus will be denied on the merits if the petitioner fails to establish a clear legal right to the requested relief.
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“petitioner has not established a clear legal right to the requested gain time”
The trial court's reasoning for denying the mandamus petition, affirmed on appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner is a disabled prisoner who filed a petition for a writ of mandamus claiming entitlement to gain-time credits equal to the maximum amount he…
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 Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, a disabled prisoner, filed a petition for writ of mandamus, in which he claimed that he is entitled to a gain time award equal to the maximum amount that he might have earned had he been able to perform the activities for which gain time is normally awarded. For this filing, a lien was imposed against petitioner’s trust account pursuant to section 57.085, Florida Statutes.
The trial court denied mandamus, reasoning that petitioner has not established a clear legal right to the requested gain time.
The trial court also upheld the order imposing the fee lien on the basis that petitioner is not challenging administrative disciplinary action which resulted in his loss of previously earned gain-time. By way of amended notice of appeal, which this Court treated as a petition for writ of certiorari, petitioner seeks review of the trial court order denying mandamus and denying relief on the fee issue. To the extent petitioner seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s denial of mandamus, this petition is denied on the merits because petitioner has not established that he was deprived of due process or that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law.
However, because the length of time that petitioner will spend in prison would have been directly affected had petitioner’s argument been successful, the March 11, 2005, order imposing the lien on petitioner’s trust account is VACATED. This cause is REMANDED for entry of an order directing the reimbursement to petitioner of those funds withdrawn from his account pursuant to the lien. See Cox v. Crosby, - So. 2d -, 31 Fla.
L. Weekly D310, 2006 WL 176681 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 26, 2006).
KAHN, DAVIS, and BROWNING, JJ., concur.