Bowles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bowles v. State

818 So. 2d 556, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 537, 2002 WL 91095

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 25, 2002

DocketNo. 2D01-486

StatusPublished

This text of 818 So. 2d 556 (Bowles v. State) 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

Bowles v. State, 818 So. 2d 556, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 537, 2002 WL 91095 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

John Bowles petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review the circuit court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus. He had filed the mandamus requesting gaintime that he alleges was wrongfully denied.

The trial court denied Bowles’ petition for mandamus for failure to state a prima facie case. Because our review of the record reveals that Bowles did state a prima facie case, we conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law and denied Bowles due process of law. Accordingly, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and remand for further proceedings that are consistent with this opinion.

Petition granted.

PARKER and SILBERMAN, J., Concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

John Bowles petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review the circuit court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus. He had filed the mandamus requesting gaintime that he alleges was wrongfully denied.

The trial court denied Bowles’ petition for mandamus for failure to state a prima facie case. Because our review of the record reveals that Bowles did state a prima facie case, we conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law and denied Bowles due process of law. Accordingly, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and remand for further proceedings that are consistent with this opinion.

Petition granted.

PARKER and SILBERMAN, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

818 So. 2d 556, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 537, 2002 WL 91095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.