Chapman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chapman v. State

883 So. 2d 835, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10989, 2004 WL 1636009

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 23, 2004

DocketNo. 5D04-1900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 883 So. 2d 835 (Chapman 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

Chapman v. State, 883 So. 2d 835, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10989, 2004 WL 1636009 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, J.

Roger Chapman petitions this court for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. We deny the petition as it fails to allege that Chapman has made the trial court aware of the pending motion.

In a civil proceeding, it is generally necessary to bring a pending matter to the [836]*836trial court’s attention. See Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So.2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). For purposes of seeking a hearing, it is of no significance that the petitioner is incarcerated or involuntarily committed. Although Chapman has been involuntarily committed pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, presumably, he would be able to attend a telephonic hearing should the trial court decide to hold one. Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, 586 So.2d 1056 (Fla.1991) (trial court has discretion to decide whether to hold a telephonic hearing in prisoner’s civil case, but may not make prisoner’s physical presence a condition precedent to ruling on pending matters). Accordingly, we deny Chapman’s petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice. Chapman must first make the trial court aware of his pending motion and seek a hearing.

MANDAMUS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

ORFINGER, J.

Roger Chapman petitions this court for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. We deny the petition as it fails to allege that Chapman has made the trial court aware of the pending motion.

In a civil proceeding, it is generally necessary to bring a pending matter to the [836]*836trial court’s attention. See Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So.2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). For purposes of seeking a hearing, it is of no significance that the petitioner is incarcerated or involuntarily committed. Although Chapman has been involuntarily committed pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act, presumably, he would be able to attend a telephonic hearing should the trial court decide to hold one. Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit, 586 So.2d 1056 (Fla.1991) (trial court has discretion to decide whether to hold a telephonic hearing in prisoner’s civil case, but may not make prisoner’s physical presence a condition precedent to ruling on pending matters). Accordingly, we deny Chapman’s petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice. Chapman must first make the trial court aware of his pending motion and seek a hearing.

MANDAMUS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

883 So. 2d 835, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10989, 2004 WL 1636009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack