CARL L. MULLINGS, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS L. BARTON, SUPERINTENDENT, FLORIDA STATE PRISON, AND ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA, 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 dismissed the appeal regarding the disorderly conduct charge as moot after the appellee's letter provided the requested relief, and reversed and remanded the destruction of state property petition for the trial court to consider on the merits.
The appeal of the disorderly conduct habeas petition is dismissed as moot where the appellee's letter provided the relief sought, and the destruction of state property petition is reversed and remanded for trial court consideration on the merits.
[1] An appeal of a habeas corpus petition becomes moot when the appellee provides the relief requested by the appellant prior to appellate decision.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Mullings filed two habeas corpus petitions with the same circuit court case number challenging charges of disorderly conduct and destruction…
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 Severance Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
The record on appeal contains two petitions for writ of habeas corpus, each with the same circuit court case number, 92-84-CA. It appears from the consistent styles on appellant’s second petition, the trial court's summary order of denial, and the instant appeal, that the present appeal applies only to appellant’s petition relating to the charge of disorderly conduct. The letter attached to appellee’s motion to dismiss provides appellant with the relief he requested, thereby rendering moot the appeal of the disorderly-conduct charge. We therefore dismiss appellant’s appeal of the summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which appellant challenged his charge of disorderly conduct.
In regard to the other petition, dealing with a charge of destruction of state property, it appears from the record that the trial court has not yet decided this case, and that the clerk of the circuit court in Bradford County may not be aware that such case is pending. We therefore reverse the order of denial as to it and remand this portion of the case to the trial court with directions to sever the same and consider on the merits appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pertaining to the charge of destruction of state property.
DISMISSED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WOLF,- J., and CAWTHON, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 899 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…the plea agreement and the fact that appellant may have agreed to the sentences at issue, he is still entitled to relief because his sentences are illegal. See Leavitt v. State, 810 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (citing Blanchette v. State, 620 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), which held that a defendant cannot plead to an illegal sentence). Appellant pled no contest to nine counts of burglary of a dwelling, which is a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years’ imprisonment. See §§ 810.02(3),…
-
Carson v. State, 37 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (same); Leavitt v. State, 810 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (same); Kinney v. State, 808 So. 2d 1285, 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (same); Debord v. State, 802 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (same); Blanchette v. State, 620 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (same); Hebert v. State, 600 So. 2d 1293, 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (same); see also Walters v. State, 812 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding that a defendant may not plead to an illegal sentence); Hollybrook v. State, 7…
-
Edwards v. State, 656 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…Statutes (1989).1 In addition, the assessment of $200.00 as an additional cost associated with appellant’s participation in the Bay County Work Program must be stricken. See Wheatley v. State, 629 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Blanchette v. State, 620 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Martin v. State, 618 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also Thomas v. State, 633 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 640 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.1994). Finally, appellant must be awarded credit for the time served on probation…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence