Summary
noting "similar challenges have been rejected in the past" and explaining that "[u]nless and until [Appellant] obtains a recovery and the Department's attempt to use the lien as a set off is either actually occurring or imminent, his request for a ruling on this point is little more than an unauthorized request for an advisory opinion"
Summary of this case from Scott v. StateOpinion
No. 3D18-1335
08-07-2019
Anthony GEORGE, Appellant, v. State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.
Charles G. White, Miami, for appellant. Daniels Rodriguez Berkeley Daniels & Cruz, P.A., and Neil P. Robertson, for appellee.
Charles G. White, Miami, for appellant.
Daniels Rodriguez Berkeley Daniels & Cruz, P.A., and Neil P. Robertson, for appellee.
Before SALTER, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.
LOGUE, J.
Former inmate, Anthony George, seeks review of the criminal court's judgment of restitution for $273,750 in favor of the Department of Corrections. The restitution lien, entered pursuant to section 960.292(2), Florida Statutes, is intended to reimburse the Department for the cost of incarcerating him while in custody. Mr. George does not contend that the lien was entered in violation of the requirements of the controlling statute or that the criminal court judge otherwise committed a legal error. Instead, he asserts the Department obtained this restitution lien to use it as a set off against any recovery he might be awarded in the future in the event he prevails in a separate civil lawsuit he filed against the Department for a personal injury he suffered during his incarceration. He contends the Department's action in this regard was retaliatory and violates his right of access to courts.
We uphold the criminal court's order under review. In doing so, we note that similar challenges have been rejected in the past. See Goad v. Fla. Dep't of Corrections, 845 So. 2d 880, 885-86 (Fla. 2003) (upholding a restitution lien as counterclaim to a prisoner's civil action claim for damages); Ilkanic v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 705 So. 2d 1371, 1372-73 (Fla. 1998) (rejecting the arguments that a restitution lien violates equal protection and due process). Nevertheless, we decline to reach the issue of whether this lien can be legally used as a set off against any future recovery because that issue is not ripe for determination. Unless and until Mr. George obtains a recovery and the Department's attempt to use the lien as a set off is either actually occurring or imminent, his request for a ruling on this point is little more than "an unauthorized request for an advisory opinion." McMullen v. Bennis, 20 So. 3d 890, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
Affirmed.