Williams v. Florida Department of Corrections

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Williams v. Florida Department of Corrections

851 So. 2d 229, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10904, 2003 WL 21683483

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-1586

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 851 So. 2d 229 (Williams v. Florida Department of Corrections) 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

Williams v. Florida Department of Corrections, 851 So. 2d 229, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10904, 2003 WL 21683483 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges an order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus which among other things sought review of a disciplinary action resulting in loss of gain time. The circuit court dismissed appellant’s action for failure to comply with section 58.085(2), Florida Statutes, the Prisoner Indigency Statute, regarding waiver of prepayment of court costs and fees for indigent prisoners. After the trial court issued its order, the supreme court in Schmidt v. Crusoe, 28 Fla. L. Weekly S367, — So.2d —, 2003 WL 1987971 (Fla. May 1, 2003), motion for reh’g filed, No. SC00-2512 (Fla. May 21, 2003), held that a prisoner who challenges loss of gain time as a result of a disciplinary action (a collateral criminal proceeding) is exempt from the requirements of the Prisoner In-digency Statute and is instead subject to the requirements of section 57.081(a), Florida Statutes (2001).

We, therefore, reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings consistent with the dictates of Schmidt.

WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges an order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus which among other things sought review of a disciplinary action resulting in loss of gain time. The circuit court dismissed appellant’s action for failure to comply with section 58.085(2), Florida Statutes, the Prisoner Indigency Statute, regarding waiver of prepayment of court costs and fees for indigent prisoners. After the trial court issued its order, the supreme court in Schmidt v. Crusoe, 28 Fla. L. Weekly S367, — So.2d —, 2003 WL 1987971 (Fla. May 1, 2003), motion for reh’g filed, No. SC00-2512 (Fla. May 21, 2003), held that a prisoner who challenges loss of gain time as a result of a disciplinary action (a collateral criminal proceeding) is exempt from the requirements of the Prisoner In-digency Statute and is instead subject to the requirements of section 57.081(a), Florida Statutes (2001).

We, therefore, reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings consistent with the dictates of Schmidt.

WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

851 So. 2d 229, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10904, 2003 WL 21683483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-florida-department-of-corrections-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack