JUAN F. VEGA, 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.
The First District Court of Appeal enforced its prior mandate in Vega v. McDonough by ordering the trial court to refund $280.00 to an inmate's trust account. The trial court had improperly reimposed a lien against Vega's account despite the appellate court's determination that the lien violated the essential requirements of law. This decision reaffirms that trial courts lack authority to alter or evade appellate mandates absent permission.
The trial court has no authority to alter or evade an appellate court's mandate absent permission to do so. The trial court's reimposition of the lien violated the appellate mandate, and therefore the court ordered the trial court to refund $280.00 to Vega's inmate trust account without delay.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to alter or evade an appellate court's mandate without permission.
[2] An appellate court will not reconsider a previous ruling and recall its mandate unless necessary to correct a manifest injustice.
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“that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by imposing a lien against Vega's account”
The appellate court's initial finding that the lien was improper under law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJuan Vega, an inmate, filed a mandamus petition challenging both a disciplinary report issued by the Florida Department of Corrections for a prison ma…
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 Manifest Injustice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On January 9, 2007, this court rendered a per curiam opinion in Vega v. McDon ough, 946 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Petitioner Vega had sought certiorari review of the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of mandamus, wherein he challenged a disciplinary report issued by the Department of Corrections based upon a violation of prison mailing rules, and of an order authorizing the Department to impose a lien against his trust account for the costs and fees of the action.
This court denied the relief sought with regard to the disciplinary report, but found “that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by imposing a lien against Vega’s account.”
The record reflects that no motion for rehearing was filed in this case and the mandate issued on February 6, 2007. On remand, the trial court, sua sponte, found that the petitioner’s mandamus petition was a “mixed-petition” pursuant to Schmidt v. McDonough, 951 So. 2d 797 (Fla.2006).1 Furthermore, the trial court ruled “the imposition and placement of a lien against plaintiffs inmate trust account for payment of the filing fees in this case is affirmed.”
It is well settled that a “trial court is without authority to alter or evade the mandate of an appellate court absent permission to do so.” Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 328 So. 2d 825 (Fla.1975), citing Cone v. Cone, 68 So. 2d 886 (Fla.1953). Appellate courts will not reconsider a previous ruling and recall the mandate unless it is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1965).
The trial court shall, without delay, enter an order refunding $280.00 to petitioner Vega’s inmate trust account.
DAVIS, BENTON, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. . The trial court in its order includes the following footnote in its entirety: "It is not clear to the undersigned from a review of the court’s file and the First DCA’s online docket whether or not the DOC raised the matter of the filing fee lien as it is presented and considered here with the district court following the issuance of Schmidt v. McDonough." In fact, the Department conceded that the lien should not have been imposed in its "Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause" of September 11, 2006. Furthermore, the Department neither presented Schmidt v. McDonough to this court nor filed for rehearing in this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Curry v. State, 16 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…court on remand properly reconsidered Curry’s motion in accordance with the mandate. “It is well settled that a ‘trial court is without authority to alter or evade the mandate of an appellate court absent permission to do so.’ ” Vega v. McDonough, 956 So. 2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (quoting Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 328 So. 2d 825, 827 (Fla.1975)). In Curry, 994 So. 2d at 1110, this Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, stating: Because the record…
-
Atkins v. State, 19 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…manding with specific instructions for further proceedings, the lower court must adhere to those express directions and “utterly lacks the power to deviate.” Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So. 2d 811, 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); see also Vega v. McDonough, 956 So. 2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Mobley v. Mobley, 920 So. 2d 97, 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Palma Sola Harbour Condo., Inc. v. Huber, 374 So. 2d 1135, 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Consequently, we find that the trial court’s failure to appoint conflict-free co…
-
Whited v. Fla. Comm'n on Offender Review, 153 So. 3d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…in contravention of our previously issued opinion that a lien may not be imposed for costs and fees associated with this type of proceeding. We, therefore, can review the order by means of a motion to enforce mandate. See Vega v. Me- [*327] Donough, 956 So. 2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). . The court also held that if a prisoner filed a "mixed claim” containing both civil and collateral criminal claims, that petition would be subject to the lien and prepayment requirements of section 57.085. Schmidt, 951 S…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1965)
- Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 328 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1975)
- Cone v. Cone, 68 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 1953)
- Schmidt v. McDONOUGH, 951 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2006)
- Vega v. McDONOUGH, 946 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Dickey v. State, 946 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)