DAVID MOORE, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE STANTON S. KAPLAN, CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
Moore sought a writ of mandamus to compel a circuit court judge to rule on his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion, which had been pending for over a year without disposition. The appellate court granted the writ and ordered the judge to issue a ruling within 30 days, finding that the unexplained delay was an abuse of discretion affecting petitioner's appellate rights.
The court granted the writ of mandamus, holding that the unexplained delay in ruling on the post-conviction relief motion constituted an abuse of discretion that improperly delayed petitioner's appellate rights. The court directed the judge to enter a formal ruling within 30 days.
[1] A petition for writ of mandamus may be granted when a trial court fails to rule on a motion for post-conviction relief within an unreasonable period of time.
[2] A properly sworn motion for post-conviction relief is required for the court to consider the merits of the petition.
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“Because a failure to act on the motion results in an inappropriate delay concerning petitioner's appellate rights, we are compelled to grant the petition for writ of mandamus.”
Establishes the legal basis for granting the mandamus petition—that inaction on post-conviction relief motions improperly delays appellate rights.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in March 1993, but it was denied for lacking a proper o…
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 Appellate Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before us on a petition for writ of mandamus. In March, 1993, petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. That petition was denied because it was not properly sworn. This court affirmed the denial, but granted petitioner leave to file a properly sworn motion. Moore v. State, 621 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
On June 23, 1993, petitioner filed a second motion for post-conviction relief. The clerk of the court processed the motion and directed it to respondent, The Honorable Stanton S. Kaplan. Having received no ruling on his 3.850 motion, petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this court on January 20, 1994. This court then ordered respondent to show cause as to why the petition for writ of mandamus should not be granted. Respondent in turn issued an order to the state attorney’s office on February 22, 1994, requiring the state to respond to petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief. Apparently, the state attorney’s office has been experiencing difficulty in obtaining a complete transcript from petitioner’s trial.
In the months that followed the show cause order, this court has ordered several status reports. However, even though a year has passed since petitioner filed his second motion for post-conviction relief, an order disposing of the motion has not been forthcoming. Because a failure to act on the motion results in an inappropriate delay concerning petitioner’s appellate rights, we are compelled to grant the petition for writ of mandamus. McBride v. State, 443 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Benczo v. Korda 528 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
Therefore, we direct the Honorable Stanton S. Kaplan or his successor, to enter a formal ruling upon petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief within thirty days of receipt of this order. We are confident that respondent will comply with the directions of this court without the necessity for issuance of the peremptory writ.
Petition for writ of mandamus is granted.
DELL, C.J. and GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Debrah L. Boyd v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 885 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…dispensing with arbitration and setting the case for trial. Petitioner is entitled to a ruling on the motion. Mandamus will lie to compel a court to perform a purely ministerial duty, such as taking action upon a pending motion. See Moore v. Kaplan, 640 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Kramp v. Fagan, 568 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We grant the petition for writ of mandamus in part and direct the trial court to enter a ruling on the motion. We withhold issuance of the writ, being confident the trial court…
-
Gonnie Griner v. State, 705 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…s jurisdiction to review his collateral challenge to these convictions and sentences which were previously affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner therefore has a clear legal right to a ruling on his motion for post-conviction relief. Moore v. Kaplan, 640 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We therefore direct the trial judge to rule on the merits of petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief within sixty days of receipt of this order. We are confident that the court will comply with the directions of this co…
Authorities Cited
- Alphonso McBRIDE v. State, 443 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Benczo v. The Honorable Lawrence L. Korda, 528 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Moore v. State, 621 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)