SHAWN SHAKESPEARE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to rule on the merits of his motion for postconviction relief rather than striking it as facially insufficient. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that mandamus relief was inappropriate because the circuit court fulfilled its ministerial duty and that Petitioner must obtain a final order denying the motion before seeking appellate review.
Mandamus relief is inappropriate because the circuit court complied with its ministerial duty to take action on the motion for postconviction relief. The circuit court's order is not a final, appealable order, and if Petitioner seeks review of the decision that the motion was facially insufficient, he must first obtain a final order denying the motion without leave to amend.
[1] Mandamus relief is inappropriate when a circuit court has complied with its ministerial duty to take action on a motion for postconviction relief.
[2] An order striking a motion for postconviction relief as facially insufficient is not a final, appealable order.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Mandamus relief is inappropriate because the circuit court complied with its ministerial duty to take action on the motion for postconviction relief.”
The court's primary holding that mandamus is not the proper remedy for challenging the striking of the motion for postconviction relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShawn Shakespeare filed a motion for postconviction relief in the circuit court, which the court struck as facially insufficient. Shakespeare then pet…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Facial Insufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this petition for writ of mandamus, Petitioner argues that the circuit court improperly struck his motion for postconviction relief as facially insufficient and seeks to compel the circuit court to rule on the merits of the motion. Mandamus relief is inappropriate because the circuit court complied with its ministerial duty to take action on the motion for postconviction relief.
The circuit court’s order is not a final, appealable order. See Shelley v. State, 993 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). If Petitioner seeks review of the circuit court’s decision that the motion for postconviction relief was facially insufficient, he must first obtain a final order denying the motion for postconviction relief without leave to amend. See Howard v. State, 976 So. 2d 635, 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“If leave to amend has been given by the trial court, a defendant may not appeal until he has obtained a denial of the motion that does not include leave to amend.”).
Accordingly, the Court denies the petition for writ of mandamus on the merits. Petitioner previously unsuccessfully sought the same relief in his petition for writ of mandamus in case number 1D21-0996. The Court warns Petitioner that any future filings raising the same issue may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any further pro se filings in this Court related to circuit court cases 2017-CF-5303 and 2018-CF-2338 and a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2021). RAY, OSTERHAUS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Howard v. State, 976 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Shelley v. State, 993 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)