Moore v. Burns

796 So. 2d 1261, 2001 WL 1230738
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 17, 2001
Docket3D01-2293
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 796 So. 2d 1261 (Moore v. Burns) 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
Moore v. Burns, 796 So. 2d 1261, 2001 WL 1230738 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

796 So.2d 1261 (2001)

Michael W. MOORE, Secretary for the Florida Department of Corrections, Petitioner,
v.
Anthony BURNS, Respondent.

No. 3D01-2293.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

October 17, 2001.

*1262 Susan Schwartz (Tallahassee), for petitioner.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Jan C. Smith, Assistant Public Defender, for respondent.

Before LEVY, GERSTEN, and GODERICH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Michael W. Moore, Secretary, State of Florida Department of Corrections (DOC), seeks certiorari review of a trial court order which prohibits the DOC from cutting respondent Anthony Burns' hair due to religious reasons. Because the trial court is without jurisdiction and lacks the authority to regulate the treatment of prison inmates, we grant the DOC's Petition for Writ of Certiorari and quash the trial court's order.

Time after time after time, this Court has made it clear that trial judges lack the authority to regulate the treatment of prison inmates; particularly as it relates to inmates' hair length. See Moore v. Mills, 789 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Moore v. Lowery, 758 So.2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Moore v. Habibullah, 739 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Singletary v. Duggins, 724 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

In Moore v. Mills, this Court unequivocally stated that "[t]he cutting of hair and beards are clearly conditions which the DOC set for inmate confinements, and to interfere with those conditions exceeds judicial authority." Moore v. Mills, 789 So.2d at 1160. Trial courts lack the authority to regulate the treatment and placement of a sentenced defendant in the prison system. See Singletary v. Acosta, 659 So.2d 449, 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Accordingly, we grant the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and quash the order.

Petition granted; order quashed.

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

Related

Cuesta v. State
929 So. 2d 648 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Muhammad v. State
872 So. 2d 411 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
State, Department of Corrections v. Mikle
855 So. 2d 1279 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
796 So. 2d 1261, 2001 WL 1230738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-burns-fladistctapp-2001.