Moore v. Mills

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moore v. Mills

789 So. 2d 1159, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9131, 2001 WL 747365

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 2001

DocketNo. 3D01-1120

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 789 So. 2d 1159 (Moore v. Mills) 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. Mills, 789 So. 2d 1159, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9131, 2001 WL 747365 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

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 shaving or cutting respondent Jermaine Mills’ hair or beard 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 [1160]*1160writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order.

Mills argues that the DOC, a non-party, should have moved to intervene in the trial court prior to seeking certiorari review, and the assistant state attorney failed to object to the trial court’s authority to issue an order prohibiting the cutting of Mills’ ham and beard. However, it is well settled that trial courts lack the authority in criminal actions to regulate the treatment of sentenced defendants in the prison system. See Moore v. Lowery, 758 So.2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Singletary v. Duggins, 724 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Moore v. Habibullah, 739 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The cutting of hair and beards are clearly conditions which the DOC set for inmate confinements, and to interfere with those conditions exceeds judicial authority.

Petition granted.

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

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 shaving or cutting respondent Jermaine Mills’ hair or beard 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 [1160]*1160writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order.

Mills argues that the DOC, a non-party, should have moved to intervene in the trial court prior to seeking certiorari review, and the assistant state attorney failed to object to the trial court’s authority to issue an order prohibiting the cutting of Mills’ ham and beard. However, it is well settled that trial courts lack the authority in criminal actions to regulate the treatment of sentenced defendants in the prison system. See Moore v. Lowery, 758 So.2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Singletary v. Duggins, 724 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Moore v. Habibullah, 739 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The cutting of hair and beards are clearly conditions which the DOC set for inmate confinements, and to interfere with those conditions exceeds judicial authority.

Petition granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 So. 2d 1159, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9131, 2001 WL 747365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-mills-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack