Harris v. Tucker

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harris v. Tucker

74 So. 3d 1133, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18597, 2011 WL 5843013

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 22, 2011

Docket1D11-2029

StatusPublished

This text of 74 So. 3d 1133 (Harris v. Tucker) 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

Harris v. Tucker, 74 So. 3d 1133, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18597, 2011 WL 5843013 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order denying his amended petition for writ of mandamus in which he challenged a disciplinary action that resulted in a forfeiture of gain time. Thus, his claims in this proceeding constituted a collateral criminal proceeding. See Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So.2d 361 (Fla.2003). As such, there is no authority for the imposition of a lien. See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Accordingly, we treat Petitioner’s challenge to the order imposing a lien for costs and fees incurred in this appellate proceeding as a motion for review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.430 and grant the motion. On remand, the circuit court is instructed to direct the reimbursement of any funds that have been withdrawn from Petitioner’s inmate trust account to satisfy the *1134 improper appellate fee lien order. See Parker v. McDonough, 958 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). We further remand for the circuit court to readdress the validity of the lien imposed for filing fees and costs associated with the mandamus proceeding based on the filing of the amended petition as contemplated in the circuit court’s previous order. We deny the petition for writ of certiorari on the merits as it relates to the remaining issues.

BENTON, C.J., HAWKES and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order denying his amended petition for writ of mandamus in which he challenged a disciplinary action that resulted in a forfeiture of gain time. Thus, his claims in this proceeding constituted a collateral criminal proceeding. See Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So.2d 361 (Fla.2003). As such, there is no authority for the imposition of a lien. See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Accordingly, we treat Petitioner’s challenge to the order imposing a lien for costs and fees incurred in this appellate proceeding as a motion for review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.430 and grant the motion. On remand, the circuit court is instructed to direct the reimbursement of any funds that have been withdrawn from Petitioner’s inmate trust account to satisfy the *1134 improper appellate fee lien order. See Parker v. McDonough, 958 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). We further remand for the circuit court to readdress the validity of the lien imposed for filing fees and costs associated with the mandamus proceeding based on the filing of the amended petition as contemplated in the circuit court’s previous order. We deny the petition for writ of certiorari on the merits as it relates to the remaining issues.

BENTON, C.J., HAWKES and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 So. 3d 1133, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18597, 2011 WL 5843013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-tucker-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack