ROGER CHAPMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF 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.
Petition for writ of mandamus to compel trial court ruling on motion for relief from judgment denied because petitioner failed to bring the pending motion to the trial court's attention.
A petitioner seeking mandamus to compel a trial court to rule on a motion must first make the trial court aware of the pending motion and request a hearing.
[1] A party seeking mandamus to compel a trial court to rule on a pending motion must first bring the motion to the trial court's attention and request a hearing, regardless…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoger Chapman, involuntarily committed pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, filed a motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1…
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 Procedural Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
Roger Chapman petitions this court for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. We deny the petition as it fails to allege that Chapman has made the trial court aware of the pending motion.
In a civil proceeding, it is generally necessary to bring a pending matter to the trial court’s attention. See Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). For purposes of seeking a hearing, it is of no significance that the petitioner is incarcerated or involuntarily committed. Although Chapman has been involuntarily committed pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, presumably, he would be able to attend a telephonic hearing should the trial court decide to hold one. Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, 586 So. 2d 1056 (Fla.1991) (trial court has discretion to decide whether to hold a telephonic hearing in prisoner’s civil case, but may not make prisoner’s physical presence a condition precedent to ruling on pending matters). Accordingly, we deny Chapman’s petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice. Chapman must first make the trial court aware of his pending motion and seek a hearing.
MANDAMUS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Drew C. Hartley v. Eighth Jud. Cnty. Court of Union Cnty., 129 So. 3d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…llant’s motion for disqualification, which was legally insufficient. The trial court erred as a matter of law by finding that appellant had “failed to allege that he has made the [lower] court aware of the pending motion,” citing Chapman v. State, 883 So. 2d 835, 835-36 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Appellant attached to his mandamus petition a motion he had filed by placing it in the hands of prison officials for mailing, alerting the county court that his motion for relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.5…
Authorities Cited
- Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, 586 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Barber, 783 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Marzuq Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)