JAMES R. FRANKENBERRY, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, 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.
The court held that the dismissal of the petition was improper because the circuit court's error in mailing notice to the wrong prison prevented timely service and filing of good cause statement.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking review of a disciplinary action. The circuit court dismissed the petition for failure to serv…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.070(J) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Prisoner James R. Frankenberry, Jr. appeals a circuit court order that dismissed his petition for writ of mandamus for failure to serve a copy on the respondent within 120 days. The petition he filed in the circuit court sought review of a disciplinary action taken against him by the Department of Corrections. We treat this appeal as a certiorari review pursuant to Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1998) and Doss v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 730 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA1999).
The record reveals that Franken-berry was deprived of his due process rights to notice and the opportunity to be heard prior to dismissal of his petition because the circuit court mailed the notice to the wrong prison, despite the fact that the court file contained Frankenberry’s new address. The delay caused by that error prevented Frankenberry from filing his statement of good cause until after the petition already had been dismissed. We grant the petition and quash the dismissal order for that reason.
In order to clarify the procedure to be followed upon reinstatement of Franken-berry’s petition, we note that the 120 day service requirement of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j) does not apply to the petition, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c)(4). Frankenberry’s petition should not be dismissed again for that reason.
DELL, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Demetrio R. Gabriele v. State, 764 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…he proper procedure for seeking reimbursement would have been a petition for writ of mandamus. We agree. We treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, see Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1998); Frankenberry v. Moore, 741 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); grant the petition based on our conclusion that the petition for habeas corpus may be addressed under the alternate writ; mandamus, and direct the circuit court on remand, to consider the petition for habeas corpus as a petition…
Authorities Cited
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998)
- Doss v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 730 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)