LINDA MICHAEL, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA CORRECTIONS COMMISSION; FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION; ET AL., APPELLEE
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 inmate challenged her denial of parole consideration and the imposition of a lien on her account for appellate costs. The court affirmed the denial of parole relief but reversed the lien, holding that because the action was a collateral criminal proceeding, costs could not be shifted to the inmate's account.
The court affirmed the denial of parole relief because the upward departure argument lacked merit. However, the court reversed the lien on the inmate account, holding that because the underlying action constituted a collateral criminal proceeding under Florida Statutes section 57.085(10), appellate costs could not be imposed as a lien on the inmate's account.
[1] A claim seeking parole consideration based on an upward departure from sentencing guidelines is without merit if the underlying legal precedent supports the departure.
[2] A collateral criminal proceeding, as defined by statute, may exempt an inmate from paying costs associated with an appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“because the appellant's action constituted a collateral criminal proceeding under section 57.085(10), Florida Statutes, the circuit court erred by imposing a lien on her inmate account to cover the costs of this appeal”
Establishes the legal error: that appellate costs cannot be imposed as a lien in collateral criminal proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLinda Michael, an inmate, sought parole consideration, arguing she was eligible because her prison sentence constituted an upward departure from recom…
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.
The appellant challenges both an order by which her request for affirmative relief was denied and an order by which a lien was imposed upon her inmate account for costs associated with this appeal. She argued below and maintains now that she is eligible for parole consideration because her prison sentence was an upward departure from the recommended guidelines sentencing range. Because her argument on this point is without merit, see Czarnecki v. State, 468 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), we affirm the circuit court’s denial of relief on this claim. But we agree with the appellant that the underlying action is in the nature of a request for mandamus relief, and that, had the appellant succeeded on the merits, the length of her time in prison might have been affected.
Thus, because the appellant’s action constituted a collateral criminal proceeding under section 57.085(10), Florida Statutes, the circuit court erred by imposing a lien on her inmate account to cover the costs of this appeal. See Miller v. Florida Parole Commission, 951 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla.2003).
The order by which the lien for appellate costs was imposed is accordingly reversed and this case is remanded for the trial court to direct the reimbursement of any funds that have been withdrawn from the appellant’s account pursuant to the lien. We note that another lien was placed on the appellant’s trust account, one relating to the costs and fees associated with the circuit court’s consideration of the underlying action. The propriety of that lien, however, was the subject of an appeal in a separate case in this court, case number 1D06-4111, which the appellant has since voluntarily dismissed. Consequently, the relief provided here relates only to the lien imposed to cover the costs of the appeal in the present case.
BARFIELD, ALLEN and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2003)
- Czarnecki v. State, 468 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Marc v. Miller, 951 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)