Reddick v. McDonough

938 So. 2d 595, 2006 WL 2738884
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 27, 2006
DocketCase No. 1D05-5044
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 938 So. 2d 595 (Reddick 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
Reddick v. McDonough, 938 So. 2d 595, 2006 WL 2738884 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

938 So.2d 595 (2006)

NAPOLEON REDDICK, Petitioner,
v.
JAMES R. McDONOUGH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Case No. 1D05-5044.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed September 27, 2006.

Napoleon Reddick, pro se, Petitioner.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General; Carrie R. McNair and Sean F. Callaghan, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

After losing 90 days of future gain-time as a consequence of a prison disciplinary proceeding, Napoleon Reddick sought relief in the circuit court by petition for writ of mandamus. The circuit court denied relief on the merits, and Reddick does not challenge that determination. However, he asserts that his claim constituted a "collateral criminal proceeding" and that the circuit court therefore erred when it declared him indigent but placed a lien on his prison account to cover the court's filing fee pursuant to section 57.085(5), Florida Statutes (2005). See § 57.085(10), Fla. Stat. (2005); Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2003). In addition, by motion for review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.430, Reddick has challenged the circuit court's order imposing a lien for appellate filing fees.

We agree with Reddick that the circuit court's imposition of these liens was error. See Mohammad v. Crosby, 922 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (under Schmidt, any challenge to discipline that results in a loss of gain-time is a collateral criminal proceeding). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari to the extent of quashing the circuit court's order imposing a lien to cover the filing fees associated with the petition for writ of mandamus, grant Reddick's motion for review, and vacate the portion of the circuit court's order imposing a lien for appellate filing fees. We further direct the circuit court to ensure the reimbursement of any funds that have been withdrawn from petitioner's account to satisfy the improper lien orders.

ERVIN, BARFIELD, and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.

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

Related

Grooms v. Department of Corrections
179 So. 3d 480 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Clark v. McDonough
964 So. 2d 798 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Parker v. McDonough
958 So. 2d 1108 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
938 So. 2d 595, 2006 WL 2738884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reddick-v-mcdonough-fladistctapp-2006.