ERNEST MCKAY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 held that the trial court erred in treating McKay's submission as a motion for postconviction relief when it was not intended as such.
[1] A trial court may not treat a submission as a motion for postconviction relief when the submission does not request such relief and does not indicate an intent to seek po…
[2] A petition for a writ of prohibition may be treated as an appeal when the act sought to be prohibited has already occurred.
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 intelligenceErnest McKay submitted documents to the clerk requesting reimbursement, which the trial court incorrectly treated as a motion for postconviction relie…
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 Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, J.
On or about October 4, 2007, Ernest McKay (“McKay”) submitted a “letter” to the Clerk of the circuit court which included several documents and requested reimbursement of the costs related to the production of these documents. The trial court treated McKay’s submission as a motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and denied it as legally insufficient. Thereafter, McKay notified the trial court that it had incorrectly treated his submission as a motion for postconviction relief; the submission was intended for the “Comptroller”; and he was seeking the Comptroller’s address to enable him to direct the submission to the appropriate office. There is nothing in the record provided that reflects a response to this communication by the trial court.
In an effort to resolve the issue, McKay attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a petition for a writ of prohibition, requesting that this Court prohibit the trial court from construing his letter as a motion for postcon-viction relief. In recognition that prohibition does not lie where the act has already occurred and there is nothing further to prohibit, see English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1977), this Court hereby treats the petition as an appeal from the summary denial of the order under review, and we reverse.
A review of the documents submitted by McKay on October 4, 2007, reveals no request for postconviction relief, nor does it indicate that McKay intended to seek postconviction relief by filing the documents. While the purpose of the filing is unclear, it is clear that it was not an effort by McKay to seek postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
We, therefore, reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the order under review and for the clerk to correct its records to reflect that the October 4, 2007, submission was not a motion for postcon-viction relief.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
See Beyer v. State (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)