Vaughan v. Singletary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vaughan v. Singletary

729 So. 2d 411, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1405, 1999 WL 69636

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 15, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1051

StatusPublished

This text of 729 So. 2d 411 (Vaughan v. Singletary) 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

Vaughan v. Singletary, 729 So. 2d 411, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1405, 1999 WL 69636 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari, Richard E. Vaughan seeks review of an order of the circuit court denying his petition for writ of mandamus. In his petition below, Vaughan challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding resulting from the discovery of certain articles of clothing characterized by the charging officer as “escape paraphernalia” because they had been fashioned to resemble street clothes. Vaughan admitted making the items, but asserted that they were merely pajamas and requested that they be produced for the disciplinary team’s inspection. That request was denied without meaningful justification, and based on the charging officer’s description of the items, Vaughan was found guilty of possessing escape paraphernalia.

Under the facts of this case, where the appearance of the items of clothing was a critical issue, we conclude that the circuit court failed to apply the correct law when it rejected Vaughan’s claim that the disciplinary team improperly denied his request for production of these objects without providing a valid reason for doing so. See Osterback v. Singletary, 679 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, we quash the decision of the circuit court and remand with directions to grant the petition for writ of mandamus and determine the appropriate relief to which Vaughan is entitled.

KAHN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari, Richard E. Vaughan seeks review of an order of the circuit court denying his petition for writ of mandamus. In his petition below, Vaughan challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding resulting from the discovery of certain articles of clothing characterized by the charging officer as “escape paraphernalia” because they had been fashioned to resemble street clothes. Vaughan admitted making the items, but asserted that they were merely pajamas and requested that they be produced for the disciplinary team’s inspection. That request was denied without meaningful justification, and based on the charging officer’s description of the items, Vaughan was found guilty of possessing escape paraphernalia.

Under the facts of this case, where the appearance of the items of clothing was a critical issue, we conclude that the circuit court failed to apply the correct law when it rejected Vaughan’s claim that the disciplinary team improperly denied his request for production of these objects without providing a valid reason for doing so. See Osterback v. Singletary, 679 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, we quash the decision of the circuit court and remand with directions to grant the petition for writ of mandamus and determine the appropriate relief to which Vaughan is entitled.

KAHN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 So. 2d 411, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1405, 1999 WL 69636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughan-v-singletary-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack