STOKES
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A criminal defendant has no clear legal right to challenge an unlawfully lenient sentence through a petition for writ of mandamus.
[1] A criminal defendant is not entitled to challenge or correct an unlawfully lenient sentence imposed by the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“criminal defendants are not entitled to correct unlawfully lenient sentences”
Court's citation to Earl v. State, 314 So. 3d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 2021)
Teddy Shawn Stokes filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. The petition was appealed to the First District C…
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 Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Court dismisses the petition for writ of mandamus because Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear legal right to relief. See Earl v. State, 314 So. 3d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 2021) (explaining that criminal defendants are not entitled to correct unlawfully lenient sentences).
RAY, M.K. THOMAS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Teddy Shawn Stokes, pro se, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2