MICHAEL GILLAM, 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 a mandamus petition but reversed the trial court's imposition of a lien on an inmate's account for court costs, holding that mandamus petitions constitute collateral criminal proceedings exempt from such liens under Schmidt v. Crusoe.
A petition for writ of mandamus by an inmate constitutes a collateral criminal proceeding, and therefore a lien cannot be imposed on the inmate's account for court costs relating to such petition.
[1] A petition for writ of mandamus by an inmate constitutes a collateral criminal proceeding, precluding imposition of a lien on the inmate's trust account to recover court…
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 intelligenceMichael Gillam, an inmate, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and sought to remove a lien that had been imposed on his inmate account for court cos…
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
The appellant challenges the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus and the trial court’s denial of his motion to remove a lien imposed upon his inmate account for court costs relating to the petition. In accordance with our decisions in Hull v. Moore, 790 So.2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), and Singletary v. Jones, 681 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), we affirm the denial of the petition. But because the trial court incorrectly concluded that the petition for writ of mandamus did not constitute a collateral criminal proceeding, we reverse the order by which the trial court denied the motion to remove the lien. See Cox v. Crosby, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D310, — So.2d -, 2006 WL 176681 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan.26, 2006), rev. granted sub nom. McDonough v. Cox, No. SC06-301, 924 So.2d 809 (Fla.2006). Accordingly, the denial of the petition for writ of mandamus is affirmed, the denial of the motion for removal of the lien is reversed, and this case is remanded with directions that the trial court remove the lien or direct the reimbursement of any funds that have been withdrawn from the appellant’s account to satisfy the lien. We again certify the question that we certified in Cox:
DOES THE HOLDING IN SCHMIDT V. CRUSOE, 878 So.2d 361 (Fla.2003), EXTEND TO ALL ACTIONS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR NATURE, IN WHICH, IF SUCCESSFUL, THE COMPLAINING PARTY’S CLAIM WOULD DIRECTLY AFFECT HIS OR HER TIME IN PRISON, SO TO PRECLUDE IMPOSITION OF A LIEN ON THE INMATE’S TRUST ACCOUNT TO RECOVER APPLICABLE FILING FEES?
ALLEN, PADOVANO and BROWNING, JJ„ concur. ■
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGEE v. State, 935 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
Authorities Cited
- Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2003)
- McDonough v. Cox, 924 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 2006)
- Singletary v. Jones, 681 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Hull v. Moore, 790 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)