Paul R. Conley v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledOctober 19, 2022
Docket2D22-1807
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
PAUL R. CONLEY,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D22-1807
October 19, 2022
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit
Court for Charlotte County; Geoffrey H. Gentile, Judge.
LaROSE, Judge.
Paul Conley appeals the order dismissing his March 14, 2022,
petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he challenged his
placement in close management by the Department of Corrections.1
1 Close management is "the separation of an inmate apart from
the general population, for reasons of security or the order and
effective management of the institution, when the inmate, through
his or her behavior, has demonstrated an inability to live in the
See Banks v. Jones, 232 So. 3d 963, 966 (Fla. 2017) (holding that a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the correct mechanism for a
prisoner to challenge his or her placement in close management).
The trial court found that Mr. Conley raised the same or
similar arguments in a February 16, 2022, petition for writ of
habeas corpus. The trial court denied the February 16 petition; an
appeal is pending in case number 2D22-769.
Our careful review of the February 16 and March 14, 2022,
petitions reveals that they do not raise the same or similar
arguments. In the March 14 petition, Mr. Conley argued that the
Department improperly placed him in close management; he wants
to be placed back in general population. In the February 16
petition, Mr. Conley argued that prison guards retaliated against
him; he requested the restoration of gain time and immediate
release.
general population without abusing the rights and privileges of
others." Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-601.800(1)(a).
2
We reverse the trial court's order dismissing Mr. Conley's
March 14, 2022, petition for writ of habeas corpus. We remand for
the court to address that petition on the merits.
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
3