WILLIAM MORA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES R. MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of the petition for writ of mandamus regarding the double jeopardy claim due to waiver and affirmed the denial of the petition regarding procedural grounds for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court quashed the order imposing a lien on the inmate's trust account.
Appellant sought a writ of mandamus challenging a quasi-judicial ruling and a lien on his inmate trust account. The trial court denied the petition. 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 Gain Time cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, C.J.
Appellant seeks review of the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus on two grounds: procedural, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and substantive, for lack of merit to his claim of double jeopardy. Because the mandamus petition challenges a quasi-judicial ruling that was partially on procedural grounds and partially on the merits, it proceeds as an appeal, although this panel is free to apply the certiorari standard to its review of the merits ruling. See Whisner v. Moore, 825 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
The record shows that Appellant did not exhaust his administrative remedies, except as to the double jeopardy claim. Appellant has waived his challenge to the double jeopardy ruling by not raising it in the instant appeal. See Ramos v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 743 So. 2d 24, 28-29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). For these reasons, he is not entitled to relief, so we AFFIRM that ruling below.
Appellant also challenges a lien placed on his inmate trust account for costs incurred in filing the petition for mandamus. The State was correct to concede on appeal that the lien was improper because Appellant’s petition ultimately challenged the loss of his gain time. See Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla.2003). Accordingly, we QUASH the order imposing the lien.
POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 89 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…is treated as an appeal of the circuit court’s dismissal of certain claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies but is reviewed under the higher certiorari standard for the denials on the merits of the remaining claims. Mora v. McDonough, 956 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The circuit court did not err by finding that Appellant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on four of his claims: that the Department failed to comply with [*301] rules 33-601.305(2); 33-601.307(3); and 33-601.308, F…
-
Molfetto v. Dep't OF Corr., 96 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ew on the merits of administrative disciplinary action, which is reviewed by this court under the more limit [*451] ed certiorari standard. See Thomas v. State, Florida Department of Corrections, 89 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Mora v. McDonough, 956 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The standard of review of a circuit court’s order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is de novo. See Serchay v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 25 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Wilson v. Oran…
Authorities Cited
- Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2003)
- Juanita v. Ramos, 743 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Whisner v. Moore, 825 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)