DAVID HUFFMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE
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 trial court must comply with the appellate court's mandate, which is a ministerial act, and failure to do so warrants reversal and remand for compliance.
[1] A trial court's compliance with an appellate court's mandate is a purely ministerial act and the trial court lacks the authority to modify, nullify, or evade such a manda…
[2] An appellate court may reverse a trial court's decision for failure to comply with a previously issued mandate.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant appealed a prior dismissal for failure to pay costs. The appellate court remanded with instructions to determine indigency and reimburse…
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 Enforcement Of Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is on appeal following the remand to the trial court in Huffman v. Moore, 778 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Because the trial court failed to follow this Court’s instructions, on remand, we reverse in part.
Originally, the appellant had appealed the circuit court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus for failure to make a timely partial payment of court costs and fees as ordered. This Court issued an opinion in Huffman, in which it ordered the trial court to (1) make a determination as to whether the Department of Corrections placed a hold on his account precluding the appellant from making the initial payment in a timely manner, thereby making dismissal for failure to make the initial payment in error, and (2) determine whether the appellant remained indigent, thereby requiring that the appellant be reimbursed for all of the court costs paid voluntarily by the appellant to the clerk. Id. On remand, the circuit court reinstated the appellant’s petition, thus satisfying the first instruction in our previous opinion.
Subsequently, the appellant brought a motion to enforce the mandate, asserting that the circuit court had failed to comply with the second instruction in our previous opinion. On July 16, 2001, by order, we stated
Appellant’s Second Motion for Enforcement of Mandate is granted. Pursuant to the terms of this court’s mandate issued February 27, 2001, the trial court is directed to immediately ascertain whether Appellant was indigent at the time his petition for writ of mandamus was initially dismissed and, if so, to issue an order reimbursing Appellant for all court costs paid by Appellant.
It does not appear that the circuit court ever acted on this order. After the appellant’s petition was disposed of on the merits, the appellant brought the instant appeal.
The appellant does not challenge the denial of his petition on the merits and therefore we deem any challenges to this denial waived. See e.g. State v. Town of Sweetwater, 112 So. 2d 852, 854 (Fla.1959); State v. Mitchell, 719 So. 2d 1245, 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Patterson v. State, 342 So. 2d 515, 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); J.A.B. Enterprises v. Gibbons, 596 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
The appellant does, however, challenge the fact that our previous order enforcing the mandate was not fully complied with by the circuit court. When an appellate court issues a mandate, compliance with the mandate by the circuit court is purely a ministerial act. The circuit court does not have the authority to modify, nullify or evade that mandate. See Brunner Enterprises Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 452 So. 2d 550, 552 (Fla.1984); Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, Dept. of Business & Professional Regulation v. Tampa Crown Distributors, Inc., 745 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Metropolitan Dade County v. Dusseau, 826 So. 2d 442, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Hill v. Palm Beach Polo, Inc., 805 So. 2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Toledo v. Hillsborough County Hospital, 747 So. 2d 958, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). For this reason, the circuit court should have acted upon our previous order to enforce the mandate. Having brought this matter to the circuit court’s attention, we are confident that the circuit court will expeditiously comply with our previous order. We therefore affirm the denial of the appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus, but reverse and remand for the circuit court to comply with the previous order. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
BARFIELD, MINER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kaynan Fitchner v. Lifesouth Cmty. Blood Ctrs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…der or decree. A trial court does not have discretionary power to alter or modify the mandate of an appellate court in any way, shape or form.”) (quoting Torres v. Jones, 652 So. 2d 893, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citations omitted)); Huffman v. Moore, 834 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). In the judgment now on appeal, the trial judge (although after a series of what I believe to be unnecessary steps below) followed this rule. But, with respect, the majority has ordered its violation, and in essence reversed…
-
Formor v. State, 923 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ply because Formor waited over eight years to complain about the trial court’s alleged failure to comply with this court’s mandate. When an appellate court issues a mandate, compliance with the mandate is purely a ministerial act. Huffman v. Moore, 834 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The circuit court does not have the authority to modify, nullify, or evade that mandate. Id. An appellate court has inherent authority to enforce its own mandate. Brunner Enter., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 452 So. 2d 550, 55…
-
State v. Gomez, 247 So. 3d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Dep't OF Revenue of the State of Fla., 452 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1984)
- J.A.B. Enters. & John Brown v. Gibbons, 596 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Toledo v. Hillsborough Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 747 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- State v. Town OF Sweetwater, 112 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1959)
- State v. General Lee Mitchell, 719 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Hill v. Palm Beach Polo, Inc., 805 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Huffman v. Moore, 778 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. & Univ. Baptist Church v. Dusseau, 826 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. Tampa Crown Distribs., 745 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Patterson v. State, 342 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)