DAVID CASON, 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.
David Cason sought certiorari review of a circuit court's denial of his mandamus petition challenging a prison disciplinary board's revocation of 30 days of gain time. The district court affirmed, holding that the disciplinary board's decision was supported by some evidence in the record, satisfying the minimal due process standard applicable to prison disciplinary proceedings.
The district court held that the disciplinary board's decision was supported by some evidence in the record, satisfying the "modicum" of evidence standard required by due process. The circuit court properly afforded Cason due process and observed the essential requirements of law in denying his mandamus petition.
[1] A district court's certiorari review of a circuit court's ruling on a petition for writ of mandamus is limited to whether the circuit court afforded due process and obser…
[2] Due process requires only a "modicum" of evidence in the record to support a prison disciplinary board's conclusion.
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“Only a 'modicum' of evidence is necessary to support an administrative decision regarding inmates even when such a decision does involve due process rights.”
Establishes the minimal evidentiary standard for prison disciplinary decisions under due process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Cason was convicted by a prison disciplinary board of possession of negotiables (currency worth $200) and lost 30 days of gain time as a re…
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 Some Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
HAWKES, J.
A circuit court’s ruling on a petition for writ of mandamus is reviewed in the district court of appeal by certiorari. See Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 703 So. 2d 1202, 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(approved 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1998)). A district court’s certiorari review is limited to a determination of whether the circuit court afforded due process and observed the essential requirement of the law. See Sheley, 703 So. 2d at 1206; see also Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla.1995).
Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari review over the circuit court’s dismissal of his mandamus petition regarding revocation of gain time by a prison disciplinary board. Petitioner lost 30 days of gain time after the board convicted him of possession of negotiables (currency worth $200). Petitioner alleges the circuit court’s decision denying his mandamus relief mistakenly relied on evidence related to a reporting officer’s firsthand observation of Petitioner’s disrespectful actions, not on evidence he possessed negotiables.
To support a conclusion of a prison disciplinary board, the Florida Supreme Court held that a “modicum” of evidence in the record satisfies the “some evidence” standard required by due process. Dugger v. Grant, 610 So. 2d 428, 432 (Fla.1992) (“[OJnly a ‘modicum’ of evidence is necessary to support an administrative decision regarding inmates even when such a decision does involve due process rights.”); see also Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2774, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (holding the relevant question is whether there is some evidence in the record to support the conclusion of the disciplinary board) (citations omitted).
Here, as required, there is some evidence in the record supporting the circuit court’s denial of Petitioner’s mandamus petition and the scrivener’s error in the order does not defeat that reality. The record, not the order, is where some evidence supporting the disciplinary board’s decision must exist. The circuit court afforded Petitioner due process and observed the essential requirements of the law.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.
KAHN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robert E. Banks v. Jones, 197 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…nizing that mandamus “is a common law remedy to be used to enforce an ‘established legal right by compelling a person in an official capacity to perform an indisputable ministerial duty required by law.’ ” (citation omitted)). In Cason v. McDonough, 943 So. 2d 861, 862-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), this court noted that the Florida Supreme Court in Dugger v. Grant, 610 So. 2d 428, 432 (Fla.1992), stated that a “modicum” of evidence is sufficient to satisfy the “some evidence” standard required to sustain a prison d…
-
Gardener v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 178 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…plies equally to this Court’s certio-rari review of a circuit court’s appellate ruling' on an administrative prison disciplinary action by the Department of Corrections. See Williams v. Tucker, 87 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Cason v. McDonough, 943 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Here, the circuit court provided Petitioner with procedural due process. As .explained in Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1908), when a prisoner files a pe…
-
Campos v. State, 181 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…sure that a prison disciplinary decision was fair and based on “some evidence” of guilt to support a guilty finding. Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-55, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Cason v. McDonough, 943 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (quoting Dugger v. Grant, 610 So. 2d 428, 432 (Fla.1992)). Nothing in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court or the Florida Supreme Court requires the district courts of appeal to allow judicial review by extraordinary…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985)
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998)
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Dugger v. Wiley Jerome Grant, 610 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1992)