WILLIAM J. MILNE
v.
MARK S. INCH, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An incarcerated inmate appealed the denial of a mandamus petition seeking reinstatement of forfeited gain time credits. The court affirmed the dismissal as untimely but reversed and vacated an improper court costs lien imposed on the inmate's trust account, finding that claims affecting sentence length are collateral criminal proceedings exempt from fee-lien provisions.
The court held that the mandamus petition was properly dismissed as untimely under the 30-day rule established in Whitfield. However, the circuit court erred in imposing a lien on Appellant's inmate trust account because claims directly affecting the length of imprisonment are collateral criminal proceedings exempt from statutory fee-lien provisions.
[1] A petition for writ of mandamus challenging the denial of gain time must be dismissed if filed more than 30 days after the final disposition of the disciplinary proceedin…
[2] Claims brought by an inmate that, if successful, will directly affect the length of time the inmate will actually spend in prison are collateral criminal proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a mandamus petition filed more than 30 days after the final disposition of a disciplinary proceeding must be dismissed”
Establishes the timeliness requirement that justified the circuit court's dismissal of appellant's petition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a state inmate, was found to have committed battery on another inmate and had gain time forfeited as a result. Appellant filed a mandamus p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Collateral Criminal Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a state inmate, challenges the denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus. In his petition, Appellant sought the reinstatement of gain time forfeited after Appellant was found to have committed a battery on another inmate. The circuit court did not err in dismissing the petition as untimely filed. See Whitfield v. Dep’t. of Corr., 107 So. 3d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that “a mandamus petition filed more than 30 days after the final disposition of a disciplinary proceeding must be dismissed”).
However, the circuit court erred in ordering a lien on Appellant’s inmate trust account for court costs and fees for filing
the petition challenging the forfeiture of gain time. See McNeil v. Cox, 997 So. 2d 343, 348 (Fla. 2008); Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361, 367 (Fla. 2003); Scott v. McDonough, 946 So. 2d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Claims brought by an inmate “that, if successful, will directly affect ‘the length of time the inmate will actually spend in prison’” are collateral criminal proceedings which are not subject to the lien provisions in section 57.085, Florida Statutes (2018). McNeil, 997 So. 2d at 348 (quoting Schmidt, 878 So. 2d at 366); see also § 57.085(10). Thus, we vacate the circuit court’s order imposing the lien, and we remand with instructions that the trial court direct that Appellant be reimbursed for any funds removed from his account pursuant to the order. Because this is a ministerial action, Appellant need not be present.
AFFIRMED, in part, and REVERSED, in part.
RAY, C.J., and BILBREY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Whitfield v. Dep't OF Corr., 107 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- McNEIL v. COX, 997 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2008)
- Scott v. McDONOUGH, 946 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)