EUGENE KRAMP, PETITIONER,
v.
OSEE R. FAGAN, JUDGE, EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, RESPONDENT
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.
Kramp petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel Circuit Judge Fagan to rule on his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence. The court held that where a trial judge fails to act on a motion within a reasonable time, mandamus lies to compel action on the motion itself, regardless of the merits of the underlying sentencing claim.
Mandamus lies to compel a trial judge to dispose of a motion to correct illegal sentence when the judge has failed to act within a reasonable time. The appellate court's role is limited to ensuring the judge acts on the motion, not to reviewing the merits of the sentencing claim or whether other remedies may be available.
[1] A writ of mandamus may be granted to compel a trial court to act on a motion that has been pending for an unreasonable time.
[2] Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel a trial court to rule on a motion, regardless of the merits of the underlying motion or the availability of other remedies.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Petitioner has demonstrated that he filed a motion in the circuit court and that the assigned judge has not acted on the motion within a reasonable time. That, and only that, is the issue before this court.”
Establishes that mandamus review is limited to the narrow issue of whether the judge failed to act on the motion, not the merits of the underlying claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKramp filed a motion to correct illegal sentence in the Circuit Court of Levy County seeking reduction from a 12-year sentence to 5 years. The circuit…
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 Discretionary Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eugene Kramp filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this court showing that he had filed a motion to correct illegal sentence in the Circuit Court of Levy County. He alleged that the lower tribunal had refused or neglected to act on his motion and sought an order of this court compelling such action. Subsequently we obtained a copy of an amended judgment and sentence which provided for a departure from the sentencing guidelines and which imposed a 12 year term of imprisonment with the Department of Corrections. It was noted, however, that the motion filed below sought reduction in sentencing to a term of five years. It was further noted that the circuit court had not actually entered an order disposing of the motion. We therefore entered an order which stated that the court had determined that the trial court’s order was not a satisfactory disposition of the motion to correct illegal sentence. Respondent was directed to show cause why the petition should not be granted.
We are in receipt of a response filed on behalf of the respondent circuit judge by the Attorney General. Therein he requests that when directing orders to show cause to the Attorney General the court should first ensure that a copy of the petition be served on him. Second, it is argued that:
[I]f as it appears based on available documents, petitioner’s claim is that the sentence is illegal, petitioner’s remedy before this court is an appeal of the judgment. Mandamus will not lie where the duty is discretionary, not ministerial, and extraordinary writs do not lie where there is an adequate remedy at law. Holland v. Wainwright, 499 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
We find the first of respondent’s arguments well-taken. It has been the policy of this court to require a certificate of service indicating that a copy of petitions of this nature have been served on the circuit judge. We agree, however, that inasmuch as the Attorney General is often called upon to respond to these types of petitions, in the future we will require service on both the respondent judge and the Attorney General.
We do not agree with respondent’s second argument. Petitioner has demonstrated that he filed a motion in the circuit court and that the assigned judge has not acted on the motion within a reasonable time. That, and only that, is the issue before this court. State ex rel. North St. Lucie River Drainage District v. Kanner, 152 Fla. 400, 11 So. 2d 889 (1943). The Holland decision relied upon by respondent was an appeal from a circuit court, order which denied a petition for writ of mandamus wherein petitioner sought to compel corrections officials to assign him a particular prefix to his inmate number, and is completely distinguishable from the facts before us. We are here not concerned with the merits of petitioner’s claims below or whether he has failed to exhaust other available avenues to the relief he seeks. If his choice of remedies is incorrect, that may serve as a basis for the trial court to deny the motion, but not for us to deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
We grant the petition and direct Judge Fagan or his substitute to dispose of the motion within 15 days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SHIVERS, C.J., and JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Moody v. Moody, 705 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…to require a timely ruling on a matter pending before a lower tribunal. See Flagship National Bank v. Testa, 429 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The purpose of the writ is not to require a particular outcome, only that action be taken. Kramp v. Fagan, 568 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We note that Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(e) contemplates an “immediate ruling” on a motion for judicial disqualification. [*709] The petition for writ of mandamus is granted and the Honorable Bill Parsons is di…
-
Gorge v. State, 712 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…s should be denied as moot. We do not agree. We grant the petition for writ of mandamus insofar as it seeks the entry of a written order ruling on Gorge’s Rule 3.800 motion. See Dennis v. Rivkind, 633 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Kramp v. Fagan, 568 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). A trial court is not free to refuse to rule, even on a meritless, successive motion.1 See id. at 480. Because we believe that the trial court will comply with this decision, we withhold issuance of the writ at this time. . W…
-
Gino Browning v. State, 814 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…that petitioner is entitled to rehef. If his release from custody was or is a basis to deny postconviction rehef, the proper course was for the circuit court to issue an order so stating, not to leave the case in limbo indefinitely. Kramp v. Fagan, 568 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). [*1221] We accordingly grant Browning’s petition and issue our writ of mandamus, directing that the trial court render an order on the merits of petitioner’s motion for postconviction relief, or schedule a hearing on the merits…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State OF Fla. on relation of N. St. Lucie River Drainage Dist. v. Honorable A. O. Kanner, 152 Fla. 400 (Fla. 1943)
- Bush Wade Holland v. L.L. Wainwright, 499 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Weed v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)