RICHARD H. GIBSON, 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 state prisoner challenged a circuit court's imposition of a lien on his inmate trust account for filing fees in a mandamus petition challenging a disciplinary infraction. The appellate court held that because the mandamus petition, if successful, could have directly affected the prisoner's sentence through eligibility for incentive gain-time, it constituted a collateral criminal proceeding exempt from the lien statute.
The court held that Gibson's mandamus petition was a collateral criminal proceeding because if successful, it would have directly affected his prison sentence by restoring his eligibility for incentive gain-time. Therefore, the lien on his inmate trust account was improper, and the court quashed the lien order and ordered all collected funds refunded.
[1] A lien may not be placed on an inmate's trust account for civil filing fees if the underlying proceeding is a "collateral criminal proceeding."
[2] A "collateral criminal proceeding" includes any action that could directly affect an inmate's prison time.
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“Section 57.085 enables the trial court to place a lien on an inmate's trust account for civil filing fees. However, the statute does not apply to "collateral criminal proceedings."”
Establishes the statutory framework and the key exemption that applies to this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGibson, a prison inmate, was found guilty of a disciplinary infraction and lost eligibility for incentive gain-time for that month. The circuit court …
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 Collateral Criminal Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This Petition for Writ of Certiorari challenges the circuit court’s denial of petitioner’s mandamus petition1 below. We grant petitioner review only as to his claim that the circuit court improperly imposed a lien on his prison inmate trust account, pursuant to section 57.085, Florida Statutes. We deny, without discussion, review on all of petitioner’s other claims for relief.
Section 57.085 enables the trial court to place a lien on an inmate’s trust account for civil filing fees. However, the statute does not apply to “collateral criminal proceedings.” See § 57.085(10), Fla. Stat. In Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361, 366 (Fla.2003), the Florida Supreme Court defined a “collateral criminal proceeding” as including any action that results in an inmate’s prison time being “directly affected.”
Despite the overwhelming lack of merit to Petitioner’s argument in his mandamus petition, if he had been successful in challenging the Department of Correction’s decision to adjudicate him guilty of a disciplinary infraction, he would have been eligible to receive incentive gain-time for the month that the infraction took place. As stipulated to by respondent, an inmate is not eligible to receive incentive gain-time for a month where he is found guilty of an infraction. See Rule 33-601.101(6)(a), Fla. Admin. Code. “Since it was technically possible that his sentence could have been shortened and thus ‘directly affected,’ we are compelled to conclude Petitioner’s mandamus petition was a ‘collateral criminal proceeding’ pursuant to Schmidt.” Yasir v. McDonough, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D1459, — So. 2d —, 2006 WL 1419271 (Fla. 1st DCA May 25, 2006) (citing Cox v. Crosby, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D310, — So. 2d —, 2006 WL 176681 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan.26, 2006)).
Accordingly, we DENY Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari in part (without discussion), GRANT it in part, QUASH the order imposing a lien on Petitioner’s inmate trust account, and order that all funds collected from the trust account be refunded. Because of what we perceive to be the logical implications of Schmidt as illustrated by cases such as this, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court, as we did in Cox and Yasir, which we believe to be of great public importance:
DOES THE HOLDING IN SCHMIDT V. CRUSOE, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla.2003), EXTEND TO ALL ACTIONS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR NATURE, IN WHICH, IF SUCCESSFUL, THE COMPLAINING PARTY’S CLAIM WOULD DIRECTLY AFFECT HIS OR HER TIME IN PRISON, SO TO PRECLUDE IMPOSITION OF A LIEN ON THE INMATE’S TRUST ACCOUNT TO RECOVER APPLICABLE FILING FEES?
DAVIS, PADOVANO, and HAWKES, JJ., concur. . In the proceeding below, petitioner filed a petition entitled “Petition for Writ of Certiora-ri,” but the circuit court correctly treated the petition as a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, pursuant to Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simpkins v. McDONOUGH, 967 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…action which may impact an inmate’s gain time and thereby effec [*951] tively alter the amount of time which will actually be served will be treated as a collateral criminal proceeding to which § 57.085 does not apply. See also Gibson v. McDonough, 951 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The disciplinary action which was the subject of the mandamus proceeding in the present case made the petitioner ineligible for a period of incentive gain time. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-601.101(6). In-accordance with Schmidt a…
Authorities Cited
- Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2003)
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)