Hartley v. McDonough

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hartley v. McDonough

947 So. 2d 454, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 9127, 2006 WL 1566141

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 2006

DocketNo. 1D06-1167

StatusPublished

This text of 947 So. 2d 454 (Hartley v. McDonough) 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

Hartley v. McDonough, 947 So. 2d 454, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 9127, 2006 WL 1566141 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The instant petition for writ of mandamus presents a challenge to a circuit court order which requires petitioner to comply with section 57.085, Florida Statutes, in order to proceed with his petition filed in that court. Even if petitioner is correct that his circuit court case is a “collateral criminal proceeding,” he must be certified as indigent under section 57.081 in order to obtain a waiver of the circuit court’s filing fee. Schmidt v. Cru[455]*455soe, 878 So.2d 361, 367 n. 7 (Fla.2003); Small v. Crosby, 877 So.2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). The circuit court order on indigency, however, is neither appealable nor reviewable by extraordinary writ because any error can be remedied on appeal from a final order. Banks v. State, 916 So.2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Steele v. Crosby, 920 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The petition for writ of mandamus is therefore denied without prejudice.

PETITION DENIED.

BARFIELD, DAVIS, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The instant petition for writ of mandamus presents a challenge to a circuit court order which requires petitioner to comply with section 57.085, Florida Statutes, in order to proceed with his petition filed in that court. Even if petitioner is correct that his circuit court case is a “collateral criminal proceeding,” he must be certified as indigent under section 57.081 in order to obtain a waiver of the circuit court’s filing fee. Schmidt v. Cru[455]*455soe, 878 So.2d 361, 367 n. 7 (Fla.2003); Small v. Crosby, 877 So.2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). The circuit court order on indigency, however, is neither appealable nor reviewable by extraordinary writ because any error can be remedied on appeal from a final order. Banks v. State, 916 So.2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Steele v. Crosby, 920 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The petition for writ of mandamus is therefore denied without prejudice.

PETITION DENIED.

BARFIELD, DAVIS, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

947 So. 2d 454, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 9127, 2006 WL 1566141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartley-v-mcdonough-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack