WILLIAM BARROSO, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Postconviction Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
William Barroso filed a petition for writ of mandamus due to the delay in receiving a ruling on his rule 3.850 motion to vacate judgment and sentence. The rule 3.850 motion was provided to prison officials for mailing on March 7, 2008. The circuit court did not order the State to file a response until after the rule 3.850 motion had been pending for over a year. The court ordered the State to file a response within sixty days of June 11, 2009, and then on August 17, 2009, granted an extension of one hundred twenty days so the court reporter could complete transcripts requested by the State.
As the rule 3.850 motion has been pending for over a year, Barroso has established an unreasonable delay in obtaining a ruling on his postconviction motion. See Feliciano v. State, 994 So.2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Aumiller v. State, 988 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). The petition is granted and the circuit judge to whom this case is assigned is directed to rule on Barroso’s rule 3.850 motion within thirty days following the receipt of this opinion or within ninety days if an evidentiary hearing is required.
PETITION GRANTED.
SAWAYA, PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Horner v. State, 236 So. 3d 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…2006) ; Matthews v. Circuit Ct. , 515 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). As his rule 3.850 motion has now been pending for over two years, Horner has clearly established an unreasonable delay in obtaining a ruling on his motion. See Barroso v. State , 19 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). While we are sympathetic to the large caseloads assigned to Florida's circuit judges,3 we are concerned that the present failure to rule on Horner's motion is unduly impairing his right of access to the courts. Accordingly, due…
-
Horner v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…was filed 155 days after the order instead of sixty days. 2 We have separately entered an order denying this motion. ---PAGE 3--- years, Horner has clearly established an unreasonable delay in obtaining a ruling on his motion. See Barroso v. State, 19 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). While we are sympathetic to the large caseloads assigned to Florida's circuit judges,3 we are concerned that the present failure to rule on Horner's motion is unduly impairing his right of access to the courts. Accordingly, due…
Authorities Cited
- del Valle v. State, 994 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Aumiller v. State, 988 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)