CHARLES JOHNSON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
CHARLES JOHNSON, PETITIONER,
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
709 So. 2d 112
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1998)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Charles Johnson petitions this court for mandamus relief, alleging that the trial court denied his motion for post-conviction relief but has failed to transmit his notice of appeal to this court. In response to our order to show cause, the state represents that the notice of appeal Johnson claims to have placed in the hands of prison officials for mailing never reached the clerk of the trial court. In light of this response, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus, but do so without prejudice to Johnson’s right to seek a belated appeal by filing a petition with this court in compliance with the provisions of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(j).
JOANOS, KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowman v. State, 748 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ate a reasonable probability i.e., one that undermines confidence in the outcome-that absent counsel’s errors, the fact finder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Lanier v. State, 709 So. 2d 112, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (Levy, J., concurring) (“a court making the prejudice inquiry must ask if the defendant has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors”) (citing Stricklan…
-
Gesner Pierre v. State, 718 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Nelms v. State, 596 So. 2d 441 (Fla.1992); Villavicencio v. State, 719 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Lanier v. State, 709 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Cf. Rhue v. State, 693 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Norris v. State, 525 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).…
-
Corley v. State, 44 So. 3d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…SHEPHERD, J. As we have done in prior cases, see, e.g., Lanier v. State, 709 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Guerrero v. Fonte, 507 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), we sua sponte consider this case en banc because the proposed panel opinion directly conflicts with our recent decision in Arroliga v. State, 928 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…