LORENZO TATUM, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 3d DCA | 2008-11-19
No. 3D08-822
Before GERSTEN, C.J., and SHEPHERD and SALTER, JJ.
994 So. 2d 1231 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2008) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We treat Defendant’s appeal from an order denying his “Motion for Specific Performance” as a motion to enforce our mandate in Tatum v. State, 957 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). In Tatum, we reversed an order denying Defendant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion and remanded for further proceedings. Id. These proceedings have not yet occurred.

Based on the decision and accompanying mandate in Tatum, the trial court had the option of denying Defendant’s motion and attaching portions of the record conclusively showing that Defendant is not entitled to relief, or granting the motion. McIntosh v. State, 914 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Because the trial court has not yet taken either course, we grant the motion and direct the trial court to promptly comply with our previously-issued mandate.

Motion granted.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Tatum v. State, 27 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
    …anting the motion. McIntosh v. State, 914 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Because the trial court has not yet taken either course, we grant the motion and direct the trial court to promptly comply with our previously-issued mandate. Tatum v. State, 994 So. 2d 1231, 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). On August 11, 2009, the trial court denied Tatum’s motion for yet a third time: [*704] PETITIONER LORENZO TATUM complains that the sentencing guidelines were miscalculated at the time of his guilty plea. Petitioner has fil…
  • Castillo v. State, 13 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
    …urned to the trial court, the court again summarily denied the Rule 3.850 motion, but did not attach any record excerpts conclusively refuting the claim. We reverse the order now before us, and remand for an eviden-tiary hearing. See Tatum v. State, 994 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). The State’s response filed in this court argues that the defendant has an additional conviction for purchase or possession of cannabis and that this offense independently makes the defendant subject to deportation. The defendan…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw