CURTIS FORMOR, 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.
Formor filed a motion to enforce a prior appellate mandate requiring resentencing after his kidnapping convictions were reversed in 1996. The court granted the motion, holding that compliance with an appellate mandate is a purely ministerial act that the trial court cannot evade, and ordered resentencing despite the State's arguments based on Formor's life sentence and laches.
The appellate court held that compliance with an appellate mandate is a purely ministerial act, and the circuit court has no authority to modify, nullify, or evade the mandate. The court granted the motion to enforce the mandate and remanded for resentencing in compliance with the prior appellate decision.
[1] Compliance with an appellate court's mandate is a ministerial act that a lower court cannot modify, nullify, or evade.
[2] An appellate court possesses inherent authority to enforce its own 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 intelligence“When an appellate court issues a mandate, compliance with the mandate is purely a ministerial act.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that trial courts must comply with appellate mandates without modification or evasion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a prior appeal (Formor v. State, 676 So. 2d 1013), Curtis Formor's convictions for home invasion robbery were affirmed while his convictions for si…
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 Motion To Enforce Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE
Curtis Formor filed a motion to enforce mandate to seek the trial court’s compliance with our opinion in Formor v. State, 676 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In Formor, we affirmed Formor’s six convictions for home invasion robbery, but reversed his convictions for six counts of kidnapping, and directed the trial court to resentence him accordingly. Id. at 1015. The mandate issued 10 July 1996. Formor asserts that no resentencing has occurred. In its response, the State posits two arguments. The State first contends that because Formor was sentenced to life in prison, his guideline sentence upon resentencing would be the same. Second, it argues that the doctrine of laches should apply 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, 552 (Fla.1984). “Each district court is vested with all the power and authority necessary for carrying into complete execution all of its judgments, decrees, orders, and determinations in the matters before it agreeable to the usage and principles of law.” § 35.08, Fla. Stat. (2004).
We grant the motion to enforce our mandate and remand this cause to the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit or, in his stead, and upon his assignment, an administrative judge, for Formor’s resentencing in compliance with this court’s mandate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Russell v. McQUEEN, 115 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…3); Baskin v. Klemm, 118 Fla. 657, 160 So. 509 (1935); State ex rel. Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264, 128 So. 837 (1930); Curry v. State, 16 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Robinson v. Weiland, 988 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Formor v. State, 923 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 300 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).3 We do not attribute to the trial court any conscious effort to deviate, but charge the errors th…
-
Betts v. Fastfunding THE Co., Inc., 60 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…ter the appeal was filed, NAF ceased arbitrating consumer complaints. This court’s mandate directing arbitration was not followed. “When an appellate court issues a mandate, compliance with the mandate is purely a ministerial act.” Formor v. State, 923 So. 2d 563, 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). “The circuit court does not have the authority to modify, nullify, or evade that mandate.” Id. Affirming the dismissal with prejudice of Appellant’s lawsuit would preclude any determination on the merits even though Code Ru…
-
Whited v. Fla. Comm'n on Offender Review, 153 So. 3d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…roneous. Thus, we enter an order enforcing the mandate and striking that portion of the order allowing the imposition of a lien as well as that portion of the order holding the petitioner responsible for payment of a filing fee. See Formor v. State, 923 So. 2d 563, 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“An appellate court has inherent authority to enforce its own mandate.” (citing Brunner Enter., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 452 So. 2d 550, 552 (Fla.1984))). LEWIS, C.J., WOLF and WETHERELL, JJ., concur. . While the trial c…
Authorities Cited
- Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Dep't OF Revenue of the State of Fla., 452 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1984)
- Formor v. State, 676 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Huffman v. Moore, 834 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)