JERRY WESLEY GOSBY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT AND JUDGE ROYCE AGNER SITTING STEAD, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The court held that a trial court is not obligated to rule on a name change petition absent allegations that a hearing has been scheduled and will be attended.
An inmate petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel a circuit court to rule on his pending name change petition. The inmate had filed the petition, …
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 Petition For Name Change cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jerry Wesley Gosby, an inmate in the Cross City Correctional Institute, petitions this court to issue a writ of mandamus. He shows that he filed a petition for name change in the Third Judicial Circuit in May, 1989. The Department of Corrections has filed a response to the petition pending below and Gosby has twice filed notices of hearing, yet the circuit court apparently refuses to enter a final order. Gosby argues that he is entitled to a ruling and asks this court to compel the lower tribunal to act.
We find that petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks. He has not alleged that he has actually scheduled a hearing on his petition with the judge’s office, or that if such a hearing was held that he or his legal representative would attend. Absent such allegations, we do not believe the trial court is obligated to rule on the name change petition and we therefore deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
We note that our decision conforms to the reasoning expressed by Judge Goshorn in his dissenting opinion in Lane v. Kaney, 557 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) and certify to the Florida Supreme Court that conflict exists between our holding in this case and the majority’s decision in Lane.
PETITION DENIED.
ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., and THOMPSON, FORD L. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, 586 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1991)…BARKETT, Justice. We review Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, 562 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), in which the district court certified conflict with Lane v. Kaney, 557 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).1 We quash the decision below. Gosby is an inmate in a Florida state prison. In May 1989, he petitioned the [*1057] circuit c…
-
Marzuq Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…rial court in conjunction with his motion. It is well-settled that in a civil proceeding, it is generally necessary to bring a pending matter to the trial court’s attention by having it noticed for hearing. See Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit Court, 562 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (in civil proceeding, prisoner must allege that hearing was scheduled with trial judge’s office), disapproved on other grounds, 586 So. 2d 1056 (Fla.1991). Under Gosby, for purposes of seeking a hearing, it is of no moment that t…
Authorities Cited
- Rayfield Lane v. Honorable Frank N. Kaney, 557 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)