Allen v. Moore

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Allen v. Moore

871 So. 2d 1023, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6059, 2004 WL 913104

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 30, 2004

DocketNo. 1D02-1929

StatusPublished

This text of 871 So. 2d 1023 (Allen v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Moore, 871 So. 2d 1023, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6059, 2004 WL 913104 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Torrence Allen challenges the circuit court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition in which Allen sought review of a decision of the Department of Corrections upholding certain disciplinary reports and revoking gain time. The trial court denied the petition because, as the trial court correctly observed, Allen did not allege he was entitled to immediate release, a prerequisite of a habeas corpus petition. We are nevertheless constrained to quash the order. A petition for writ of mandamus is the appropriate vehicle for review of a prison disciplinary proceeding. See, e.g, Woullard v. Bishop, 734 So.2d 1151, 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The circuit court should have treated Allen’s petition for habeas corpus as a petition for writ mandamus, and if facially sufficient, should have required the Department of Corrections to show cause with regard to the allegations in the petition. See Ashley v. Moore, 767 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Order of Dismissal QUASHED, case REMANDED.

KAHN, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Torrence Allen challenges the circuit court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition in which Allen sought review of a decision of the Department of Corrections upholding certain disciplinary reports and revoking gain time. The trial court denied the petition because, as the trial court correctly observed, Allen did not allege he was entitled to immediate release, a prerequisite of a habeas corpus petition. We are nevertheless constrained to quash the order. A petition for writ of mandamus is the appropriate vehicle for review of a prison disciplinary proceeding. See, e.g, Woullard v. Bishop, 734 So.2d 1151, 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The circuit court should have treated Allen’s petition for habeas corpus as a petition for writ mandamus, and if facially sufficient, should have required the Department of Corrections to show cause with regard to the allegations in the petition. See Ashley v. Moore, 767 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Order of Dismissal QUASHED, case REMANDED.

KAHN, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

871 So. 2d 1023, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6059, 2004 WL 913104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-moore-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack