Chilcott v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chilcott v. State

22 So. 3d 131, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16852, 2009 WL 3784593

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 2009

Docket5D09-2429

StatusPublished

This text of 22 So. 3d 131 (Chilcott 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

Chilcott v. State, 22 So. 3d 131, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16852, 2009 WL 3784593 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Courtney Chilcott, Jr., seeks a writ of mandamus because the circuit court has not ruled on his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief filed in January 2008. The last action taken in the underlying proceeding was on September 23, 2009, when the circuit court granted a sixty-day extension of time for the State to file a response to the rule 3.850 motion. The response will be due on or about November 23, 2009.

Given the slow progress in the underlying proceeding, we cannot be certain that a ruling will be issued within two years of the filing date of the rule 3.850 motion if Chilcott is not granted relief by this court. We, therefore, grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the circuit court to issue a ruling on Chilcott’s rule 3.850 motion by December 23, 2009, which is thirty days after the date the State’s response is due. See Deboles v. State, 960 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Lewis v. State, 934 So.2d 605 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

PETITION GRANTED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Courtney Chilcott, Jr., seeks a writ of mandamus because the circuit court has not ruled on his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief filed in January 2008. The last action taken in the underlying proceeding was on September 23, 2009, when the circuit court granted a sixty-day extension of time for the State to file a response to the rule 3.850 motion. The response will be due on or about November 23, 2009.

Given the slow progress in the underlying proceeding, we cannot be certain that a ruling will be issued within two years of the filing date of the rule 3.850 motion if Chilcott is not granted relief by this court. We, therefore, grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the circuit court to issue a ruling on Chilcott’s rule 3.850 motion by December 23, 2009, which is thirty days after the date the State’s response is due. See Deboles v. State, 960 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Lewis v. State, 934 So.2d 605 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

PETITION GRANTED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 So. 3d 131, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16852, 2009 WL 3784593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chilcott-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack