CLIFFORD GROOMS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Clifford Grooms challenged a circuit court's imposition of a lien on filing fees for a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a prison disciplinary report that made him ineligible for gain-time credits. The appellate court quashed the lien, holding that mandamus petitions challenging prison discipline affecting gain-time eligibility constitute collateral criminal proceedings exempt from lien requirements under Florida law.
The court held that mandamus petitions challenging prison discipline that adversely affects the ability to earn gain-time constitute collateral criminal proceedings exempt from the lien requirement, and therefore the circuit court's imposition of a lien covering filing fees was improper and must be quashed.
[1] A petition for writ of mandamus challenging a disciplinary report that makes an inmate ineligible to receive certain gain-time constitutes a collateral criminal proceedin…
[2] Collateral criminal proceedings are exempt from the lien requirement of section 57.085(5), Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“we quash the circuit court's order imposing a lien to cover the filing fees associated with the petition for writ of mandamus”
The court's disposition quashing the lien imposed by the lower court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrooms filed a petition for writ of mandamus in circuit court challenging a disciplinary report that rendered him ineligible to receive certain incent…
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 Gain Time Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
Clifford Grooms asserts the petition for writ of mandamus he filed in circuit court constituted a collateral criminal proceeding exempt , from the lien requirement of section 57.085(5), Florida Statutes (2013), because it, was a challenge to a disciplinary report that made him ineligible to receive •certain gain-time. See § 57.085(10), Fla. *481Stat. (2013); see also Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-601.101(6)(a) (providing “[a]n inmate is not eligible to receive incentive gain time for the month in which there is an infrac-, tion of the rules of the Department or the laws of the State for which he 'is found guilty”). On the authority of Muhammad v. Crosby, 922 So.2d 236, 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), we quash “the circuit court’s order imposing a lien to cover the filing fees associated with the petition for writ of mandamus.” Reddick v. McDonough, 938 So.2d 595, 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
Even where prison disciplinary proceedings do not result in the loss of earned gain-time, we have held mandamus petitions challenging discipline that adversely affects the ability to earn gain-time constitute collateral criminal proceedings. See Wright v. McDonough, 058 So.2d 1132, 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So.2d 861 (Fla.2003)); see also Thomas v. Dap’t of Corr., 159 So.3d 291, 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“We agree with the Appellant that the portion of his. petition that challenged his inability to earn gain time for one month was a collateral criminal proceeding, which was exempt from the lien requirement of section 57.085, Florida Statutes.”).
Lien quashed.
BENTON and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
ROWE, J., concurs in result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Akeem Muhammad v. Crosby, 922 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Thomas v. Dep't OF Corr., 159 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Napoleon Reddick v. McDONOUGH, 938 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)