JOHN GRAHAM, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN RUTHERFORD, AS SHERIFF OF DUVAL COUNTY, AND THE JACKSONVILLE SHERIFFS OFFICE, RESPONDENTS
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 a writ of mandamus is appropriate to compel a lower court to process a previously filed mandamus petition that was misfiled.
John Graham filed a replevin complaint, which was transferred. He then filed a mandamus petition in the appellate court to compel action, which was tr…
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 Replevin cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Graham filed a replevin complaint in the Circuit Court for Duval County. The case was transferred to county court. After the passage of time without action on the complaint, a mandamus petition was then filed by Graham in this court to compel a resolution by the trial court. The mandamus petition was assigned case number 1D03-5222, but then transferred to the circuit court, the proper forum. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(c)(1)(A) and (3); § 26.012(1), Fla. Stat.; Johnson v. Florida Parole and Probation Comm’n, 543 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), disapproved on other grounds, Sheley v. Florida Parole Comm’n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1998).
Graham now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus to compel action by the circuit court on the mandamus petition pending there. In response to an order to show cause, this court has been informed that the circuit court mandamus petition was misfiled and not assigned a case number. This appears to be a circumstance where issuance of the writ is appropriate. See Kramp v. Fagan, 568 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
We therefore grant the petition and direct the Circuit Court for Duval County to forthwith process the mandamus petition which was transferred there by this court’s order of January 26, 2004, in case number 1D03-5222. We direct the circuit court’s attention to Quigley v. Satz, 596 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) for guidance in handling Graham’s mandamus petition.
PETITION GRANTED.
BARFIELD, DAVIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quintanilla v. State, 913 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…uise of a motion for reconsideration, was effectively a second 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. However, this motion was filed well outside of the two-year limitation period for same, and was therefore untimely. See, e.g., Brunache v. State, 901 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)(when defendant’s motion is treated as a Rule 3.850 motion and falls outside the two-year time period, it is time barred). As time-barred, the motion for post-conviction relief was properly denied, and, thus, we affirm.…
-
Guridi v. State, 959 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…from successive review. State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 291 (Fla.2003). Moreover, such a claim was raisa-ble only via a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and is therefore timebarred. See Bru- [*282] nache v. State, 901 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Fla. Bar Re Amendment to Rules of Crim. P. (Rule 3.850), 460 So. 2d 907 (Fla.1984). It is abundantly clear that appellant has been serially abusing the post-conviction process. See Johnson v. State, 915 So. 2d 682, 684 (Fla…
Authorities Cited
- Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998)
- Kramp v. Osee R. Fagan, 568 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Johnson v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 543 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Quigley v. Satz, 596 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)