Exempt from the Fee and Lien Requirements Regarding Petition for Writ of Mandamus Challenging Amendment Constitutionality
In Cox v. Crosby, 27 So. 3d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), the First District had for consideration the question of whether Cox's petition for writ of mandamus challenging the constitutionality of a 1993 amendment to section 944.275, Florida Statutes, was exempt from the fee and lien requirements under section 57.085(10).
Section 944.275, as amended, precluded Cox from receiving basic gain time.
The trial court in Cox held that the action was not exempt from the payment and lien provisions of section 57.085. See id. at 45.
Cox sought review in the district court, where the State argued that the holding in Schmidt should be limited to actual gain time forfeitures and not apply to an action challenging a statute.
The First District disagreed and concluded that Cox's action was one that is exempt from payment and lien requirements because, if successful, it would directly affect the time that Cox would spend in prison. Cox, 27 So. 3d at 46.
The district court then certified the following question to this Court in Cox v. Crosby:
Does the holding in Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2003), extend to all actions, regardless of their nature, in which, if successful, the complaining party's claim would directly affect his or her time in prison, so to preclude imposition of a lien on the inmate's trust account to recover applicable filing fees? Id.