ROMEO WARD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court affirmed the denial of mandamus because the trial court had already complied with the appellate mandate removing the habitual offender designation from the second degree murder conviction, and any remaining DOC records issues should be addressed through the institutional grievance process.
A petition for mandamus to compel compliance with a prior appellate mandate is properly denied when the trial court has already complied with that mandate.
[1] When a trial court has already complied with an appellate mandate, a subsequent petition for mandamus to compel compliance with that same mandate is properly denied.
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 intelligenceWard sought mandamus to compel the trial court to comply with a 1995 appellate mandate directing removal of a habitual offender designation from his s…
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 Petition For Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges an order by which the lower court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus. In his petition below the appellant sought to compel the lower court to comply with the mandate which issued in connection with this court’s opinion in Ward v. State, 667 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), wherein we directed that the judgment and sentence for the appellant’s second degree murder conviction be corrected to show that the appellant was not adjudicated as a habitual offender for that offense. The attachments to the present order denying mandamus indicate that the lower court complied with this court’s mandate shortly after it was issued, and that judgment and sentence were thereafter entered without a habitual offender designation for the second degree murder. The appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus was therefore properly denied.
In seeking mandamus the appellant referred to documents from the Department of Corrections which appear to still maintain a habitual offender designation for the second degree murder. But this does not negate the lower court’s compliance with our mandate, and the proper avenue of recourse would appear to be for the appellant to pursue the institutional grievance process.
The appealed order is affirmed.
ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Honesty v. State, 667 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Romeo Ward v. State, 667 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)