Anderson v. Florida Parole Commission

948 So. 2d 46, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21752, 2006 WL 3797285
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Anderson v. Florida Parole Commission. Read the opinion of the Court — 974 So. 2d 505
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 28, 2006·No. No. 1D06-2486·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for certiorari challenging the trial court’s denial of a petition for [47]*47writ of mandamus in which petitioner challenged the presumptive parole release date set by the Parole Commission. On June 19, 2006, this court determined that petitioner’s appeal from the circuit court order is renewable by petition for writ of certio-rari pursuant to Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 720 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998). We deny the petition as to review of the decision regarding the presumptive release date, but we must reverse the circuit court’s order imposing a lien on appellant’s prison account based on the holding in Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So.2d 361 (Fla.2003). Under Schmidt, the circuit court erred when it ordered appellant to pay filing fees and imposed a lien on his prison account. See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537-38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED as to the challenge to the order by which the circuit court denied mandamus, but is GRANTED as to the challenge to the lien order, and that order is hereby QUASHED.

ERVIN, ALLEN, and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

Anderson v. Florida Parole Commission, 948 So. 2d 46, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21752, 2006 WL 3797285 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

948 So. 2d 46 (Anderson v. Florida Parole Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cason v. Crosby
892 So. 2d 536 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Schmidt v. Crusoe
878 So. 2d 361 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Sheley v. Florida Parole Com'n
720 So. 2d 216 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)