LAWRENCE D. EVANS, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, 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.
An inmate challenged the trial court's dismissal of his mandamus petition and imposition of a lien on his trust account for court costs and fees. The appellate court reversed, holding that a mandamus petition challenging prison disciplinary confinement constitutes a collateral criminal proceeding, barring liens on inmate trust accounts.
The court reversed the dismissal of the mandamus petition because the Clerk's Certificate did not provide notice that partial prepayment was required. The court also reversed the lien on the trust account, holding that a mandamus petition challenging disciplinary confinement constitutes a collateral criminal proceeding to which the statutory bar on placing liens on inmate trust accounts applies.
[1] A trial court's order dismissing a petition for writ of mandamus is reversible error when the clerk's certificate enrolling the petitioner into a payment plan does not pr…
[2] A trial court errs in imposing a lien on an inmate's trust account for court costs and filing fees when the underlying petition for writ of mandamus is considered a colla…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“an inmate's mandamus petition, challenging a disciplinary report imposing 15 days disciplinary confinement, was a collateral criminal proceeding because the disciplinary confinement limited petitioner's ability to earn gain time”
Establishes that mandamus petitions challenging prison disciplinary confinement constitute collateral criminal proceedings, triggering statutory protections for inmate trust accounts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawrence D. Evans, an inmate at Union Correctional Institution, received a disciplinary report on January 12, 2005, for contraband found in his cell. …
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 Earned Gain Time cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Lawrence D. Evans challenges the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of mandamus, as well as the court’s order authorizing the Department of Corrections to place a lien on his inmate trust account for payment of court costs and filing fees.
On January 12, 2005, appellant received a disciplinary report when officers discovered contraband in his cell. The first of two disciplinary hearings was convened on January 19, 2005, and as a result appellant was assessed 30 days disciplinary confinement and penalized 15 days of earned gain time. Appellant pursued an administrative appeal, and ultimately the disciplinary team’s decision was overturned by the Warden for the Union Correctional Institution. At a second disciplinary hearing, held March 9, 2005, appellant was given only 15 days disciplinary confinement with no lost gain time. With respect to this second disciplinary hearing, appellant contended that he was denied his constitutional right to be present at that hearing. Accordingly, appellant filed a series of administrative appeals from the March 9 decision, all of which were denied.
Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus on July 18, 2005, arguing that the disciplinary action should be reversed. On September 2, the Clerk of Court entered a Certificate of Indigence and enrolled appellant in a payment program, requiring him to make periodic payments from his inmate trust account toward the total amount of court costs and fees associated with his petition. Accompanying that Certificate, the trial court entered an order authorizing the Department of Corrections to place a lien on appellant’s inmate trust account. Appellant filed a motion for rehearing, arguing that Florida Statutes barred the trial court from placing a lien on appellant’s trust account in any criminal proceeding or collateral criminal proceeding. That motion was denied.
On October 25, 2005, the trial court entered an order dismissing appellant’s petition for mandamus relief. In particular, the trial court noted that the Clerk had determined appellant was able to prepay some part of the court costs and fees, and that the period of time in which appellant was required to make such payments had since expired. Appellant appeals this order of dismissal, as well as the court’s order of September 2 that placed a lien on his inmate trust account.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his mandamus petition because the Clerk’s Certificate enrolling him into a payment plan did not provide him with notice that partial prepayment was required in order for his action to proceed. The Department concedes that this was reversible error by the trial court.
Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in imposing a lien on appellant’s inmate trust account. We agree. See Jackson v. McDonough, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D2299, - So. 2d -, 2006 WL 2527244 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 5, 2006) (holding that an inmate’s mandamus petition, challenging a disciplinary report imposing 15 days disciplinary confinement, was a collateral criminal proceeding because the disciplinary confinement limited petitioner’s ability to earn gain time).
Therefore, we (i) reverse the September 2, 2005 order imposing a lien on appellant’s inmate trust account and remand for entry of an order directing the reimbursement of any funds withdrawn from appellant’s in mate account pursuant to the lien, and (ii) reverse the October 25, 2005 order dismissing appellant’s petition for mandamus relief and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN, BARFIELD and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Captain Ana Joseph, 989 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…57.085, but by sections 57.081 and 57.082, the general indigency statutes. See Schmidt v. McDonough, 951 So. 2d 797 (Fla.2006); Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla.2003), limited by Bush v. State, 945 So. 2d 1207 (Fla.2006); Evans v. Mc-Donough, 939 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). As appellant’s petition was not properly dismissed pursuant to section 57.085(6) and his request for indigent status was not properly considered under section 57.085, we reverse the order appealed and remand the matter to the tr…
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. McDONOUGH (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)