Rutledge v. McDonough
This text of 931 So. 2d 171 (Rutledge 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.
Opinion
Jesse RUTLEDGE, Petitioner,
v.
James R. McDONOUGH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
*172 Jesse Rutledge, pro se, Petitioner.
Philip A. Fowler, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner's argument that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying his petition for writ of mandamus is without merit and is rejected. But because the underlying action constitutes a "collateral criminal proceeding" pursuant to section 57.085(10), Florida Statutes, the trial court improperly imposed two liens upon the 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, No. SC06-301, 924 So.2d 809, 2006 WL 1047612 (Fla. Mar. 14, 2006); Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So.2d 361 (Fla.2003). We accordingly quash the two lien orders. The trial court should direct the reimbursement of any funds that have been withdrawn from the petitioner's account to satisfy the improper lien orders.
The petition is DENIED as to the challenge to the order by which the trial court denied mandamus, but it is GRANTED as to the challenge to the lien orders and those orders are hereby QUASHED.
ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
931 So. 2d 171, 2006 WL 1341266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rutledge-v-mcdonough-fladistctapp-2006.