Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2012

Williams v. Tucker

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided May 24, 2012 · Davis, Swanson, Wetherell

87 So. 3d 1270; 2012 WL 1869384; 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8290 (Southern Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Robert E. Banks v. Julie L. Jones, Secretary, etc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
Gardener v. Florida Department of Corrections (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)
Brooks v. Dixon (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
Curtis Parker v. Florida Dept. of Corr. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
Kevin Owens v. Julie Jones, Secretary (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
Owens v. Jones (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
Castillo v. State, Department of Corrections (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)
Garrick John v. Michael D. Crews, Secretary, etc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)
Wilder v. State, Department of Correction (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Gary Williams, an inmate serving a parole-eligible life sentence, appeals the denial of his petition for mandamus challenging a disciplinary report that resulted in him being placed in disciplinary confinement for 60 days. We treat the appeal as a petition invoking our certiorari jurisdiction,* and deny the petition on the merits because the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in determining that Williams failed to demonstrate any liberty interest implicating the protections of the Due Process Clause. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486-87, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (holding that 30-day disciplinary confinement “did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a liberty interest,” and further stating that “[t]he chance that a finding of misconduct will alter the balance [in consideration of parole] is simply too attenuated to invoke the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause”).

DENIED.

DAVIS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 703 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved by 720 So.2d 216 (Fla. 1998).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.