STEVEN NIXON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Steven Nixon appeals an order that denied his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We AFFIRM without prejudice to Nixon filing a 3.800(b) motion in the trial court before filing the initial brief in his direct appeal. See Amendments to Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.111(e), 24 Fla. L. Weekly S530, S530-31, — So. 2d -, 1999 WL 1029285 (Fla. Nov. 12, 1999) (adopting amendments, effective immediately, to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800 and Fla. R.App. P. 9.600(d), and explaining that “under the new rule 3.800(b)(2), if a notice of appeal has been filed, a motion to correct a sentencing error can also be filed in the trial court at any time until the first appellate brief is filed”).
KAHN, BENTON, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mazer v. Orange Cnty., 811 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…2(1) only if this Court had rendered a decision on the merits of the Petition, and held in Petitioner’s favor.” Appellate courts have generally allowed direct review of an order dismissing a petition for writ of mandamus. See e.g., Tucker v. Ruvin, 748 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Ponton v. Moore, 744 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Masiello v. Moore, 739 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Hensley v. Singletary, 690 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 703 So. 2d 1202, 1…
-
Clark Leichty v. Clerk OF Cir. Court, 948 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…on from the trial court clerk to provide documents or accept filings cannot start with mandamus at the appellate court. He must seek relief in the trial court first. It is the trial court that has jurisdiction over such matters. See Tucker v. Ruvin, 748 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that where clerk refused to file legal document, circuit court should have granted mandamus); see also Martin v. Krischer, 783 So. 2d 1170, 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Green v. State, 698 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…
-
Tremaine Bailem v. State, 984 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…have an indisputable legal duty to perform the requested action, and the petitioner must have no other adequate remedy.” Jenkins v. State, 957 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); accord Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla.2002); Tucker v. Ruvin, 748 So. 2d 376, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Mandamus is cognizable where the lower court fails to perform a ministerial duty, not to force a discretionary action. See State v. S.C.W., 718 So. 2d 320, 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citing Buckhalt v. McGhee, 632 So. 2d 120, 1…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence