WILLIE LEE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER A. MCNEIL, 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.
Willie Lee Williams appealed an order striking his motion for reimbursement of filing fees paid in a collateral criminal proceeding. Although the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, it granted Williams's motion for review and ordered reimbursement of all monies removed from his prison trust account, finding that the Prisoner Indigency Statute did not apply to his mandamus petition challenging forfeiture of gain time.
The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the Motion for Reimbursement was essentially a motion for rehearing of the 2005 denial of relief, which is not appealable. However, the court granted the motion for review, finding that the Prisoner Indigency Statute was not applicable to Williams's collateral criminal proceeding, and ordered reimbursement of all filing fees and monies removed from his prison trust account.
[1] An appeal from an order striking a motion for rehearing is not appealable.
[2] A court lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion filed more than seven years after the entry of a final order, absent a proper procedural mechanism to revive jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“This Court lacks jurisdiction because the Motion for Reimbursement was essentially a motion for rehearing of the 2005 order denying relief.”
Establishes lack of appellate jurisdiction over the appeal of the order striking the motion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging forfeiture of gain time. A final order denying mandamus relief was entered May 5, 2000. In …
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 appellant brought this appeal seeking review of an “Order Striking Motion for Reimbursement,” entered November 14, 2007. Subsequently, the appellant filed a motion to review a new lien order entered on February 13, 2008, imposed for the fifing fees associated with bringing this appeal. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction but we grant the appellant’s motion.
The order on appeal recited that the final order denying mandamus relief in this case had been entered on May 5, 2000. The appellant did not appeal that final order. In 2005, the appellant filed a motion for relief seeking to reopen the case to challenge an interlocutory indigency order that had resulted in the appellant being charged fifing fees. This motion was denied and the appeal from that denial was dismissed. Williams v. Crosby, 918 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
In November 2007, the appellant filed a Motion for Reimbursement seeking the return of the fifing fees he had paid as a result of the interlocutory indigency order.
The trial court entered the instant order determining that there was no procedural mechanism to revive the court’s jurisdiction over seven years after the entry of the final order and more than two years after the denial of relief from the final order.
Therefore, the motion was stricken as an unauthorized motion over which the court had no jurisdiction. This Court lacks jurisdiction because the Motion for Reimbursement was essentially a motion for rehearing of the 2005 order denying relief. Lewis v. State, 928 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Further, an order striking a motion for rehearing is not appealable. Adlington v. Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 954 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
However, because the appellant’s initial petition for writ of mandamus challenged the forfeiture of gain time, this was a collateral criminal proceeding for which the Prisoner Indigency Statute was not applicable. Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla.2003).
Therefore, we grant the motion for review, quash the lower court’s February 13, 2008, order imposing the lien for appeal service charges, and remand with instructions for the reimbursement of all monies removed from the prisoner’s trust account pursuant to the lien. Wagner v. McDonough, 927 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, but the motion for review is granted and this case is remanded with directions.
ALLEN, WOLF, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 121 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
-
Scruggs v. Rasmussen Coll. (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…PER CURIAM. The Court denies Appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus filed May 4, 2023. The Court grants Appellee’s motion to dismiss filed May 22, 2023, and dismisses this case for lack of jurisdiction. See Williams v. McNeil, 983 So. 2d 660, 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The Court denies all pending motions as moot. LEWIS, ROBERTS, and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. __…
Authorities Cited
- Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2003)
- C.R. v. State, 927 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Wagner v. McDONOUGH, 927 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Lewis v. State, 928 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Al-Mosawi v. City OF Crescent City, 918 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Williams v. Crosby, 918 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Hardrick Green v. State, 954 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)