Alberson v. Durocher

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alberson v. Durocher

677 So. 2d 113, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8267, 1996 WL 431162

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 2, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2580

StatusPublished

This text of 677 So. 2d 113 (Alberson v. Durocher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alberson v. Durocher, 677 So. 2d 113, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8267, 1996 WL 431162 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of Alber-son’s petition for a writ of mandamus on the ground that the petition fails to show he exhausted all grievance or administrative procedures to obtain copies of his presen-tence investigative report. Duggan v. Department of Corrections, 665 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Washington v. State, 662 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Further, we note the Department of Corrections must be added or substituted as the proper party, [114]*114since it appears the Department rather than the Office of the Public Defender (Durocher) is in possession of the presentence investigative report. See 35 Fla. Jur.2d, Mandamus & Prohibition § 104. Our affirmance is without prejudice to resubmit a proper petition for mandamus to the trial court. See Scalf v. Singletary, 618 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, J., concurs. GRIFFIN, J., concurs in result only.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

W. SHARP, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of Alber-son’s petition for a writ of mandamus on the ground that the petition fails to show he exhausted all grievance or administrative procedures to obtain copies of his presen-tence investigative report. Duggan v. Department of Corrections, 665 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Washington v. State, 662 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Further, we note the Department of Corrections must be added or substituted as the proper party, [114]*114since it appears the Department rather than the Office of the Public Defender (Durocher) is in possession of the presentence investigative report. See 35 Fla. Jur.2d, Mandamus & Prohibition § 104. Our affirmance is without prejudice to resubmit a proper petition for mandamus to the trial court. See Scalf v. Singletary, 618 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, J., concurs. GRIFFIN, J., concurs in result only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

677 So. 2d 113, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8267, 1996 WL 431162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alberson-v-durocher-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack