Wilder v. State, Department of Correction

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wilder v. State, Department of Correction

139 So. 3d 462, 2014 WL 2299759, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8247

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 29, 2014

DocketNo. 1D12-6100

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 So. 3d 462 (Wilder v. State, Department of Correction) 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

Wilder v. State, Department of Correction, 139 So. 3d 462, 2014 WL 2299759, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8247 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Antonious Wilder, an inmate who challenged in the trial court a disciplinary report that resulted in his disciplinary confinement for thirty days, appeals the order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus as frivolous. We treat the appeal as a petition invoking this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction and deny the petition on the merits. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law by determining that Wilder failed to demonstrate any liberty interest implicating the protections of the Due Process Clause. See Williams v. Tucker, 87 So.3d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (treating the appeal as a certiorari petition and holding that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law by finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a liberty interest where he was placed in sixty days of disciplinary confinement).

DENIED on the merits.

LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Antonious Wilder, an inmate who challenged in the trial court a disciplinary report that resulted in his disciplinary confinement for thirty days, appeals the order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus as frivolous. We treat the appeal as a petition invoking this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction and deny the petition on the merits. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law by determining that Wilder failed to demonstrate any liberty interest implicating the protections of the Due Process Clause. See Williams v. Tucker, 87 So.3d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (treating the appeal as a certiorari petition and holding that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law by finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a liberty interest where he was placed in sixty days of disciplinary confinement).

DENIED on the merits.

LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 So. 3d 462, 2014 WL 2299759, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilder-v-state-department-of-correction-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack