JAMES CLARK, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Belated Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for writ of mandamus filed with the Florida Supreme Court and transferred to this court, Inmate James Clark seeks to compel this court to rule on a petition purportedly pending before this court which seeks belated appeal from an order that denied postconviction relief. Although the Florida Supreme Court would appear to be the proper forum for this mandamus petition, see State ex rel. Florida Real Estate Comm’n v. Anderson, 164 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), we elect not to transfer the petition back to the Florida Supreme Court but instead will address the merits.
A diligent search of this court’s files through its case management system has not revealed the filing of the petition seeking belated appeal at issue. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied. See Clark v. State, 954 So.2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). This disposition is without prejudice to petitioner’s right to file in this court a petition seeking a belated appeal with the date stamp reflecting when it was originally given to prison officials for mailing.
PETITION DENIED.
WOLF, HAWKES, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
NIX v. State, 84 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ecifically pronouncing the fine at the sentencing hearing. See Reyes, 655 So. 2d at 116. Because this fine was erroneously imposed, the surcharge under section 938.04, which is based on the amount of fine, must also be reversed. See Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). On remand, the trial court may reimpose the fine and surcharge after providing notice to Appellant and following the proper procedure.2 Accord Williams v. State, 82 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (reversing judgment for fi…
-
Sterling S. Mallory v. State, 70 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…and a $20 court cost pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2009). As the State properly concedes, the trial court failed orally to pronounce the fine; therefore, the imposition of the fine, surcharge, and cost was error. See Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence but remand for entry of a corrected judgment striking the $2,100 fine, the $105 surcharge, and the $20 court cost. CLARK and RAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Leondray Kirkland v. State, 106 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ate properly concedes that the trial court should have orally pro [*5] nounced the $100 investigative cost, as it is a discretionary cost and not a mandatory cost. See Baker v. State, 86 So. 3d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (citing Pullam v. State, 55 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)). The State also correctly concedes that the Public Defender fee should be struck because the trial court did not advise Appellant of his right to contest the fee when it was orally imposed. See § 938.29(5), Fla. Stat.; Fla. R.C…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n v. Honorable Allen C. Anderson, 164 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Clark v. State, 954 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)