Marvin Pace v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 31, 2025
Docket3D2025-0096
StatusPublished

This text of Marvin Pace v. State of Florida (Marvin Pace v. State of Florida) 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
Marvin Pace v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 31, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________

No. 3D25-0096 Lower Tribunal No. F16-7074 ________________

Marvin Pace, Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Anne Stuzin, Judge.

Marvin Pace, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General; Charles Thomas Martin, Jr., Assistant General Counsel (Tallahassee), for appellees.

Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In the lower court, the Florida Department of Corrections filed a motion

to impose a civil restitution lien against Appellant pursuant to section 960.293(2)(b), Florida Statutes. On January 20, 2023, the trial court granted

the motion and entered an order imposing a lien in the amount of

$273,750.00. On June 27, 2023, the Appellant filed a motion to vacate the

lien due to various legal infirmities including the fact that he never received

a copy of the order. The trial court denied the motion and Appellant appealed.

On appeal, the Florida Department of Corrections acknowledged that

the motions for such liens were civil in nature. See Fla. Dep’t of Corr. v Holt,

373 So. 3d 969, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). It further acknowledged that, while

the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion under Florida Rule of Civil

Procedure 1.530, it had such jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Civil

Procedure 1.540(b)(4). It also noted that the mail logs of the facility indicated

the Appellant did not receive the order. The Florida Department of

Corrections therefore indicated it “does not oppose Appellant’s requested

relief to vacate the order in light of the review of the mail logs.”

In light of the Florida Department of Corrections’ acknowledgements,

the January 20, 2023 order is reversed. In doing so, we commend the candor

and professionalism of Charles Thomas Martin, Jr., Esquire.

Reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Marvin Pace v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marvin-pace-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2025.