Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Dorrie M. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the decision of the circuit court to treat the rule 3.800(a) motion as a petition for writ of mandamus. Appellant did not show that he received an illegal sentence and his challenges to the parole statutes are properly reviewed in a mandamus petition.

However, the circuit court erred in requiring appellant to comply with section 57.085, Florida Statutes. Collateral criminal proceedings are exempt from this statute and the general indigency statute, section 57.081, Florida Statutes, applies in this case. See § 57.085(10), Fla. Stat.; Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Nevertheless, Thomas is not entitled to relief as his claims have been fully litigated more than once and are without merit. See Cal. Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995); Paschal v. Wainwright, 738 F.2d 1173 (11th Cir. 1984).

STONE, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

THOMAS v. STATE
(Jul 15, 2005)