Cason v. Crosby, 892 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Cason v. Crosby, 892 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“it is a general canon of statutory construction that, when the legislature includes particular language in one section of a statute but not in another section of the same statute, the omitted language is presumed to have been excluded intentionally.”
76 citation events (76 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Creative Choice XXV, Ltd. v. FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORP. (fladistctapp, 2008-07-17)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Creative Choice XXV, Ltd. v. FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORP.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
it is a general canon of statutory construction that, when the legislature includes particular language in one section of a statute but not in another section of the same statute, the omitted language is presumed to have been excluded intentionally.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Ross v. Florida Parole Commission
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
recently, the supreme court in held that cases such as the instant one, where the prisoner challenges the loss of gain-time, are exempt from section 57.085.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. E.M.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Bank, 692 So.2d 146, 152 (Fla.1997); Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Berdeal
S.D. Fla. · 2009 · confidence medium
Bank, 692 So.2d 146, 152 (Fla.1997) (citing Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 , 104 S.Ct. 296 , 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983) (“Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in disparate inclusion or exclusion.”)); Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (same).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Phillips v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
See Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So.2d 361, 367 (Fla.2003); Marquez v. McDonough, 945 So.2d 652, 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. FLORIDA PAROLE COM'N
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Section 57.085, known as the "prisoner indigency statute," was enacted in 1996 "in order to reduce unnecessary or frivolous prisoner filings." Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) D'HAITI v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Accordingly, we reverse the order dismissing Mr. D'Haiti's mandamus petition; vacate the indigency order insofar as it requires partial prepayment and placement of a lien on his inmate trust account for the remainder, see Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); remand for further proceedings on his mandamus petition; and direct that the circuit court enter an order on remand requiring reimbursement to Mr. D'Haiti of those funds withdrawn from his account pursuant to the lien.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marquez v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Accordingly, we vacate the order placing a lien on Mr. Marquez's inmate trust account, see Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), and remand for entry of an order directing the reimbursement of those funds withdrawn from his account pursuant to the lien.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lopez v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Weekly D310 , *1, ___ So.2d ___, ___, 2006 WL 176681 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 26, 2006) (granting the appellant's motion for review of order of indigency and reversing the order to the extent that it imposed a lien on his inmate trust account in an appeal from the trial court's order denying his mandamus petition); Banks v. State, 916 So.2d 35, 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding that an interlocutory order granting indigency status and imposing a lien on a prisoner's trust account for payment of court costs and fees is not an immediately appealable order and dismissing the appeal without prejudice to t…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Cox v. Crosby (4×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
This court recognized Schmidt held cases “where the prisoner challenges the loss of gain-time, are collateral criminal proceedings and are exempt from section 57.085.” Id. at 537 (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) LK v. Department of Juvenile Justice
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Beach v. Great Western Bank, 692 So.2d 146, 152 (Fla.1997); Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
See § 57.085(10), Fla. Stat.; Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Harris v. Tucker
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Gaines v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Calero v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Smith v. Florida Parole Commission
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Perez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Mathis v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Quilling v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Lane v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Hurley v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Hickey v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Wagner v. McDonough, 927 So.2d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
cited Cited "see" Anderson v. Florida Parole Commission
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537-38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Jones v. Florida Parole Commission
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537-38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Gaffney v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Delgado v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" DAVELLA v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Banks v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Yasir v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Grayer v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" McGee v. State, Florida Department of Corrections
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 537-38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Salerno v. Crosby
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Statton v. Crosby
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Rankin v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Small v. Crosby, 877 So.2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Pace v. State, 763 So.2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hirschkorn v. Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Banks v. State, 916 So.2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (dismissing appeal from interlocutory order that granted indigency status and imposed a lien); see also Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (granting relief from indigency order, which imposed a lien for appellate filing fees, by motion filed in the appeal from the final order).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Daniel Kevin Schmidt v. Walter McNeil
11th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536, 536-37 (1st Dist.Ct.App.2005) (explaining that the Florida Supreme Court held, in Schmidt I, that a prisoner’s mandamus petition challenging the loss of gain time was not subject to § 57.085, but was subject to § 57.081); Hughes v. Weiss, 870 So.2d 87, 88 (2d Dist.Ct.App.2003) (same); Drayton, 807 So.2d at 821 (noting that the circuit court dismissed the prisoner’s petition for a writ of mandamus, which raised a due process challenge to a prison disciplinary proceeding, pursuant to § 57.085); Jackson v. Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 790 So.2d…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Washington v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (providing relief from indi-gency order where review was properly initiated following final order dismissing mandamus petition).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Swinson v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (providing relief from indi-gency order where review was properly initiated following final order dismissing mandamus petition).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Strickland v. McDonough
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (providing relief from indi-gency order where review was properly initiated following final order dismissing mandamus petition).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hicks v. Crosby
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Cason v. Crosby, 892 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David K. CASON, Appellant,
v.
James V. CROSBY, Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.
1D03-5380.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan 7, 2005.
892 So. 2d 536
Per Curiam.
Cited by 65 opinions  |  Published

David K. Cason, pro se, appellant.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Carrie R. McNair, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the dismissal of his mandamus petition in the Circuit Court for Leon County. Appellant challenged a disciplinary action of the Florida Department of Corrections which resulted[*537] in the loss of gain-time. The circuit court dismissed the petition without prejudice to file the petition in the sentencing court, citing Schmidt v. Crusoe, 878 So.2d 361 (Fla.2003).

Upon consideration of appellee's concession of error, the order of dismissal is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the circuit court for consideration of the merits of appellant's petition. See Davidson v. Crosby, 883 So.2d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Burgess v. Crosby, 870 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.430, appellant also seeks review of the circuit court's order of indigency. The circuit court found appellant unable to pay the appellate filing fees but placed a lien on appellant's inmate trust account for the full amount of the appellate filing fee ($130.00) assessed by the circuit court. We grant appellant's motion and vacate the circuit court's order of indigency to the extent that it imposes a lien on appellant's inmate trust account.

In 1996, the legislature enacted section 57.085, the prisoner indigency statute, in order to reduce unnecessary or frivolous prisoner filings. See Geffken v. Strickler, 778 So.2d 975 (Fla.2001); ch. 96-106, Laws of Fla. Section 57.085 provides that an indigent prisoner may initiate civil lawsuits without prepayment of filing fees but specifically provides that a lien may be placed on the prisoner's trust account until the fee is paid in full. However, the statute specifically exempts "collateral criminal proceedings" from its provisions. Recently, the supreme court in Schmidt held that cases such as the instant one, where the prisoner challenges the loss of gain-time, are collateral criminal proceedings and are exempt from section 57.085. Schmidt, 878 So.2d at 367. Therefore, the general indigency statute, section 57.081, applies. Id. at 367 n. 7.

Prior to the 1996 enactment of section 57.085, prisoners asserting indigency fell under the general indigency statute, section 57.081. The general statute provided that persons meeting the indigency requirements were permitted to have their cases heard without the payment of the filing fee altogether. See Geffken, 778 So.2d at 976. Section 57.081(1) provides that any indigent person "shall receive the services of the courts ... despite his or her present inability to pay for these services." Thus, section 57.081 permits an indigent person to proceed with a case without payment of costs. However, section 57.081 does have a mechanism for future payment of the filing fees for court services. Section 57.081(3) states that, if the indigent person prevails, "costs shall be taxed in his or her favor and, when collected, shall be applied to pay costs which otherwise would have been required and which have not been paid."

Unlike section 57.085, section 57.081 does not specifically state that a lien may be placed on a prisoner's trust account to collect the filing fees. It is a general canon of statutory construction that, when the legislature includes particular language in one section of a statute but not in another section of the same statute, the omitted language is presumed to have been excluded intentionally. Beach v. Great Western Bank, 692 So.2d 146 (Fla.1997). At the time section 57.085 was enacted and collateral criminal proceedings were exempted from its reach, the legislature could have amended section 57.081 to provide for collection of filing fees upon appellant's future ability to pay. However, the legislature did not. Therefore, the provision of imposing a lien on inmate accounts does not apply to indigency candidates under section 57.081.

[*538] Appellee argues that section 28.241 requires the circuit court clerk to collect an appellate filing fee. Appellee contends that, under this statute, the circuit court clerk has authority to institute payment of the fees at a later time when appellant has the ability to pay. This argument is contrary to statute. Section 28.241(2) provides that the clerk shall defer payment of the appellate filing fee if a party is determined to be indigent. This section does not authorize the imposition of a lien.

Accordingly, there is no statutory authority for the imposition of the lien in this case. As a lien may only be imposed by contract or by operation of law, the trial court erred in placing a lien on appellant's account. Furthermore, as noted by the supreme court in Geffken, collateral criminal proceedings are exempted even from the partial payment provisions of section 57.085. 778 So.2d at 976. Thus, persons meeting the indigency requirements of section 57.081 should be able to proceed with their cases without the payment of any filing fee.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; motion for review GRANTED.

BROWNING, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.