Bellamy v. McNeil

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bellamy v. McNeil

7 So. 3d 638, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6274, 2009 WL 1035002

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 2009

Docket1D07-2766

StatusPublished

This text of 7 So. 3d 638 (Bellamy v. McNeil) 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

Bellamy v. McNeil, 7 So. 3d 638, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6274, 2009 WL 1035002 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Coy Bellamy appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. Bellamy contends that the trial court should have issued an alternative writ of mandamus requiring the Department of Corrections to show cause why the writ should not be issued. We agree and reverse with instructions to the trial court to issue an order to show cause.

Bellamy alleged that his legal documents were lost or misplaced by the Department and that he was not given the opportunity to verify that all of his inventoried property was returned to him before signing a receipt for his items. Because Bellamy’s petition for writ of mandamus was facially sufficient, the decision of the trial court is reversed with instructions to issue an alternative writ of mandamus requiring the Department to show cause why the writ should not be issued.

Reversed.

HAWKES, C.J., PADOVANO and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Coy Bellamy appeals the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. Bellamy contends that the trial court should have issued an alternative writ of mandamus requiring the Department of Corrections to show cause why the writ should not be issued. We agree and reverse with instructions to the trial court to issue an order to show cause.

Bellamy alleged that his legal documents were lost or misplaced by the Department and that he was not given the opportunity to verify that all of his inventoried property was returned to him before signing a receipt for his items. Because Bellamy’s petition for writ of mandamus was facially sufficient, the decision of the trial court is reversed with instructions to issue an alternative writ of mandamus requiring the Department to show cause why the writ should not be issued.

Reversed.

HAWKES, C.J., PADOVANO and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 So. 3d 638, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6274, 2009 WL 1035002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellamy-v-mcneil-fladistctapp-2009.