Summary
holding that a hearing was required on motion to dissolve an injunction when inmate alleged injunction was preventing him from obtaining a lower custody level, taking advantage of rehabilitation programs, or transferring to a facility closer to home
Summary of this case from Alston v. HainesOpinion
No. 2D15–1684.
01-20-2016
Joshua WOOLLEY, Appellant, v. Angela J. NELSEN, Appellee.
Joshua Woolley, pro se. No appearance for Appellee.
Joshua Woolley, pro se.
No appearance for Appellee.
Opinion
KHOUZAM, Judge.
In 2009, Angela Nelson acquired a dating violence protective injunction against Joshua Woolley. In March 2015, Woolley filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, alleging that he had been convicted of unrelated criminal charges and had begun serving his ten-and-twelve year sentences resulting from those convictions. He argued that the injunction no longer served a valid purpose due to his incarceration and that the injunction was preventing him from obtaining a lower custody level, taking advantage of rehabilitation programs, or transferring to a facility closer to home. Six days later, the trial court denied the motion without a hearing. Woolley appealed, arguing the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion without first holding a hearing.
We agree that Woolley is entitled to a hearing on his motion. “Due process requires a trial court to give a person moving to vacate an injunction a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” McCormick v. Shannon, 32 So.3d 787, 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). And based on the allegations in Woolley's motion, he may be entitled to relief. See Baker v. Baker, 112 So.3d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that domestic violence injunction no longer served a valid purpose due to movant's lengthy incarceration). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Woolley's motion and remand for a hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.