JAMES P. ANDERSON, 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.
Florida appellate court denied petitioner's challenge to DOC's recalculation of his sentence expiration date but granted his challenge to a lien placed on his inmate trust account for filing fees, holding that sentence computation challenges are collateral criminal proceedings exempt from the Prisoner Indigency Statute.
A challenge to recalculation of an inmate's maximum sentence expiration date is a collateral criminal proceeding that exempts the petitioner from the Prisoner Indigency Statute, and therefore filing fees cannot be imposed via lien on the inmate trust account.
[1] A challenge to the recalculation of an inmate's maximum sentence expiration date constitutes a collateral criminal proceeding and is therefore exempt from the Prisoner In…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“It is clear that the Supreme Court has refused to be bound by the variations in terminology used in various challenges to the computation of an inmate's sentence. Instead, it has looked to the effect the challenged action had on the amount of time an inmate has to actually spend in prison.”
Court explaining the standard for determining whether a challenge to sentence computation is a collateral criminal proceeding.
James Anderson sought certiorari to challenge the Department of Corrections' recalculation of his maximum sentence expiration date following revocatio…
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 Prisoner Indigency Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner seeks to invoke this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction to challenge the Department of Corrections’s recalculation of his maximum sentence expiration date following revocation of his conditional release supervision. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law by denying his petition for writ of mandamus and we therefore deny the petition on this ground.
However, the petitioner’s argument that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it ordered a lien placed on his inmate trust account to pay the mandamus petition filing fee has merit. The petitioner’s challenge to the recalculation of his maximum sentence expiration date, which effectively lengthened his sentence, is a collateral criminal proceeding which thus exempts the petitioner from the Prisoner Indigency Statute. See Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361, 367 (Fla.2004) (“It is clear that the Supreme Court has refused to be bound by the variations in terminology used in various challenges to the computation of an inmate’s sentence. Instead, it has looked to the effect the challenged action had on the amount of time an inmate has to actually spend in prison.”)
Accordingly, the petitioner’s petition is DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and REMANDED with directions to remove the lien from the petitioner’s inmate trust account and to refund any funds removed from the account to pay the mandamus petition filing fee.
KAHN, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.