HENRY CLIFTON, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, 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 court rejected the petitioner's mandamus challenge to his parole release date but held that the circuit court improperly imposed a lien on his inmate trust account for court costs in a collateral criminal proceeding and must refund the withdrawn funds.
A circuit court may not impose a lien on an inmate's trust account for court costs and fees in a collateral criminal proceeding under section 57.085(10), Florida Statutes, and must refund any funds wrongfully withdrawn.
[1] A circuit court may not impose a lien on an inmate's trust account for court costs and fees in a collateral criminal proceeding under section 57.085(10), Florida Statutes…
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 intelligencePetitioner Clifton sought a writ of mandamus challenging the setting of his presumptive parole release date. The circuit court denied the mandamus pet…
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.
Petitioner’s argument that the circuit court erred in denying a petition for writ of mandamus which challenged the setting of his presumptive parole release date is without merit and is rejected. But because the underlying action constituted a “collateral criminal proceeding” pursuant to section 57.085(10), Florida Statutes (2006), the circuit court improperly imposed a lien upon petitioner’s inmate trust account for payment of court costs and fees. Petitioner preserved this issue by filing in the circuit court a motion to vacate the lien. See Kemp v. McDonough, 955 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
Although the circuit court granted the motion and dissolved the lien, the court refused to authorize a refund of the monies which had been withdrawn from petitioner’s inmate account based on the erroneous lien. We quash that portion of the circuit court’s November 6, 2006, order which refused to authorize a refund. See Villar v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 955 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
Accordingly, the petition is DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and REMANDED. We direct the circuit court to order reimbursement of any funds that have been withdrawn from petitioner’s account to satisfy the improper lien order. ALLEN, KAHN, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin Cnty. Conservation Alliance & 1000 Friends of Fla., Inc. v. Martin Cnty., 73 So. 3d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense; or (b) Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts. § 57.105(1), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added); Gopman v. Dep’t of Educ., 974 So. 2d 1208, 1210 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (citing E. Indus. Inc. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 960 So. 2d 900, 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)). Section 57.105 applies to all who file appeals in Florida’s courts, including parties who have prevailed in the low…
-
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 54 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…mination of factual or legal merit can occur either when the claim or defense is first made, or later when the party discovers, or should have discovered, that the claim or defense lacks factual or legal merit. See Gopman v. Department of Education, 974 So. 2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The test is simply whether the “party or his counsel knew or should have known, at the time of filing, [that the claims were] not grounded in fact, or were not warranted by existing law or by reasonable argument for extens…
-
Long v. AvMED, Inc., 14 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…mination of factual or legal merit can occur either when the claim or defense is first made, or later when the party discovers, or should have discovered, that the claim or defense lacks factual or legal merit. See Gopman v. Department of Education, 974 So. 2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The test is simply whether the “party or his counsel knew or should have known, at the time of filing, [that the claims were] not grounded in fact, or were not warranted by existing law or by reasonable argument for extens…
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
- Kemp v. McDONOUGH, 955 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Villar v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 955 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)