Castillo v. State, Department of Corrections

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Castillo v. State, Department of Corrections

174 So. 3d 452, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11863, 2015 WL 4709586

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 7, 2015

DocketNo. 1D14-3806

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 174 So. 3d 452 (Castillo v. State, Department of Corrections) 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

Castillo v. State, Department of Corrections, 174 So. 3d 452, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11863, 2015 WL 4709586 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Isaac Castillo, an inmate who challenged in the trial court a disciplinary report that resulted in his disciplinary confinement for thirty days, appeals the order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus as frivolous. We treat the appeal as a petition invoking this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction. See Wilder v. State, Dep’t of Corrections, 139 So.3d 462, 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law by determining that Mr. Castillo failed to demonstrate any liberty interest impheating the protections of the Due Process Clause. See Williams v. Tucker, 87 So.3d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

DENIED on the merits.

vBENTON, MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Isaac Castillo, an inmate who challenged in the trial court a disciplinary report that resulted in his disciplinary confinement for thirty days, appeals the order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus as frivolous. We treat the appeal as a petition invoking this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction. See Wilder v. State, Dep’t of Corrections, 139 So.3d 462, 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law by determining that Mr. Castillo failed to demonstrate any liberty interest impheating the protections of the Due Process Clause. See Williams v. Tucker, 87 So.3d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

DENIED on the merits.

vBENTON, MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 So. 3d 452, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11863, 2015 WL 4709586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castillo-v-state-department-of-corrections-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack