Crispen Hart v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crispen Hart v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 22, 2014

Docket14-2244

StatusPublished

This text of Crispen Hart v. State of Florida (Crispen Hart v. State of Florida) 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

Crispen Hart v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

CRISPEN HART, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Petitioner, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

v. CASE NO. 1D14-2244

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent. ___________________________/

Opinion filed September 16, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Crispen Hart, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Munn v. Fla. Parole Comm’n,

807 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). This disposition is without prejudice to

petitioner filing a subsequent petition if necessary in the future.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR.

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