Gabriele v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gabriele v. State

764 So. 2d 924, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10392, 2000 WL 1154047

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 16, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-1787

StatusPublished

This text of 764 So. 2d 924 (Gabriele v. State) 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

Gabriele v. State, 764 So. 2d 924, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10392, 2000 WL 1154047 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant petitioned the circuit court for writ of habeas corpus seeking reimbursement of deductions taken by the Department of Corrections from his inmate account, containing funds he received from the United States Veterans’ Administration, and the declaration that such deductions were illegal pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a) (exempting veterans’ benefits from the claims of creditors). The circuit court denied his petition with prejudice as an inappropriate vehicle for the relief sought. The state and the Department of Corrections contend that the proper procedure for seeking reimbursement would have been a petition for writ of mandamus. We agree. We treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, see Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 720 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998); Frankenberry v. Moore, 741 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); grant the petition based on our conclusion that the petition for habeas corpus may be addressed under the alternate writ; mandamus, and direct the circuit court on remand, to consider the petition for habeas corpus as a petition for writ of mandamus.

With regard to Appellant’s other claims regarding appointment of counsel and transfer, we deny relief.

STONE, POLEN, and SHAHOOD, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant petitioned the circuit court for writ of habeas corpus seeking reimbursement of deductions taken by the Department of Corrections from his inmate account, containing funds he received from the United States Veterans’ Administration, and the declaration that such deductions were illegal pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a) (exempting veterans’ benefits from the claims of creditors). The circuit court denied his petition with prejudice as an inappropriate vehicle for the relief sought. The state and the Department of Corrections contend that the proper procedure for seeking reimbursement would have been a petition for writ of mandamus. We agree. We treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, see Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 720 So.2d 216 (Fla.1998); Frankenberry v. Moore, 741 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); grant the petition based on our conclusion that the petition for habeas corpus may be addressed under the alternate writ; mandamus, and direct the circuit court on remand, to consider the petition for habeas corpus as a petition for writ of mandamus.

With regard to Appellant’s other claims regarding appointment of counsel and transfer, we deny relief.

STONE, POLEN, and SHAHOOD, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 So. 2d 924, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10392, 2000 WL 1154047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gabriele-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack