CHRISTOPHER QUINN LEWIS, 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.
Christopher Lewis petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule 3.850, which had been pending for approximately one year without a decision. The Fifth District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that mandamus lies to compel a trial court to rule on a motion after a reasonable time has passed, and finding that the delay impaired Lewis's rights of access to courts and due process.
Mandamus lies to compel a trial court to rule on a motion after a reasonable time has passed. The court held that the one-year delay in ruling on Lewis's Rule 3.850 motion impaired his rights of access to courts and due process, warranting mandamus relief.
[1] Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel a trial court to rule on a motion or petition after a reasonable time has elapsed.
[2] A trial court's failure to rule on a postconviction relief motion for approximately one year may impair a petitioner's rights of access to the courts and due process.
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“Mandamus lies to compel a trial court to rule on a motion or petition after a reasonable time.”
Establishes the legal standard for obtaining mandamus relief to compel a ruling on a pending motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis filed a postconviction relief motion on June 23, 2005, which was amended on July 25, 2005. The trial court ordered the State to respond within 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 Access To Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Q. Lewis filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the circuit court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit to rule on a motion for postconviction relief filed initially on June 23, 2005, and amended on July 25, 2005. In response, the State advised this Court that on March 3, 2006, the circuit court ordered the State to respond within sixty days to Lewis’s rule 3.850 motion. The State urged that because “the circuit court is aware of the pending motion, the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied.” We declined the State’s invitation to dismiss the matter, and, instead, directed the State to file a status report regarding the postcon-viction proceedings on or before June 1, 2006. In compliance therewith, the State notified this Court that on April 28, 2006, the trial court granted the State an additional sixty days within which to respond to the rule 3.850 motion. The order does not inform us as to why such an extension was necessary. As it now stands, Lewis’s motion for postconviction relief has been pending for approximately one year and a ruling has not been made.
Mandamus lies to compel a trial court to rule on a motion or petition after a reasonable time. Matthews v. Circuit Court, 515 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Given the status of the matter below, once the State responds to Lewis’s rule 3.850 motion, the trial court may grant relief, summarily deny relief, or order an evidentiary hearing. We have no way of knowing which of these will occur, or, more importantly, when a final order will be entered.
While we are loath to interfere with a trial judge’s management of his or her docket, we are concerned that the failure to rule on Lewis’s motion impairs his rights of access to the courts and due process. Accordingly, we are compelled to grant the petition for writ of mandamus. McBride v. State, 443 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
We direct the Honorable Julie H. O’Kane, or her successor, to rule on Lewis’s rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief within thirty days of receipt of this order. If an evidentiary hearing is required, an additional sixty days will be allowed to conduct same.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
GRIFFIN, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deboles v. State, 960 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…, the trial court nevertheless granted an additional thirty days response time for the State. We have run out of patience. Mandamus is appropriate to compel a trial court to rule on a motion or petition within a reasonable time. See Lewis v. State, 934 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Matthews v. Circuit Court, 515 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). The present proceeding is now more than two years old. Significantly, at this point we have no way of knowing when a ruling by the trial court below will be forthco…
-
Chilcott v. State, 22 So. 3d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…mandamus and direct the circuit court to issue a ruling on Chilcott’s rule 3.850 motion by December 23, 2009, which is thirty days after the date the State’s response is due. See Deboles v. State, 960 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Lewis v. State, 934 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). PETITION GRANTED. SAWAYA, ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Alphonso McBRIDE v. State, 443 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Matthews v. Cir. Court, 515 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Hampton Alonzo Corry v. State, 515 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)