Jones v. Harris

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jones v. Harris

949 So. 2d 1079, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1058, 2007 WL 246596

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 2007

DocketNo. 1D06-2370

StatusPublished

This text of 949 So. 2d 1079 (Jones v. Harris) 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

Jones v. Harris, 949 So. 2d 1079, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1058, 2007 WL 246596 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner’s argument that the circuit court erred in denying his petition for writ of mandamus is without merit and is rejected; however, because the underlying action constitutes a “collateral criminal proceeding” pursuant to section 57.085(10), Florida Statutes (2005), the circuit court improperly imposed a lien upon petitioner’s inmate trust account for payment of court costs and fees. See Cox v. Crosby, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D310, — So.2d-, 2006 WL 176681 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 26, 2006), rev. granted sub nom. McDonough v. Cox, 924 So.2d 809 (Fla.2006); Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So.2d 361 (Fla.2003). We accordingly quash that portion of the circuit court’s order on indigency imposing a lien as a result of the filing of the petition for writ of certiorari/mandamus below. [1080]*1080The circuit court should direct the reimbursement of any funds that have been withdrawn from petitioner’s account to satisfy the improper lien order.

DENIED.

WEBSTER, POLSTON, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner’s argument that the circuit court erred in denying his petition for writ of mandamus is without merit and is rejected; however, because the underlying action constitutes a “collateral criminal proceeding” pursuant to section 57.085(10), Florida Statutes (2005), the circuit court improperly imposed a lien upon petitioner’s inmate trust account for payment of court costs and fees. See Cox v. Crosby, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D310, — So.2d-, 2006 WL 176681 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 26, 2006), rev. granted sub nom. McDonough v. Cox, 924 So.2d 809 (Fla.2006); Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So.2d 361 (Fla.2003). We accordingly quash that portion of the circuit court’s order on indigency imposing a lien as a result of the filing of the petition for writ of certiorari/mandamus below. [1080]*1080The circuit court should direct the reimbursement of any funds that have been withdrawn from petitioner’s account to satisfy the improper lien order.

DENIED.

WEBSTER, POLSTON, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

949 So. 2d 1079, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1058, 2007 WL 246596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-harris-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack