Donald v. State

755 So. 2d 816, 2000 WL 424101
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 20, 2000
Docket1D00-1005
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 755 So. 2d 816 (Donald 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
Donald v. State, 755 So. 2d 816, 2000 WL 424101 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

755 So.2d 816 (2000)

Steve Anthony DONALD, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D00-1005.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 20, 2000.

Steve Anthony Donald, pro se, petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Steve Anthony Donald petitions this court for a writ of mandamus, complaining of certain actions or omissions on the part of the trial judge and defense counsel in his criminal prosecution. We find that direct appeal and a motion for postconviction relief serve as adequate legal remedies to correct any of the described errors. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Hall v. Key, 476 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

BARFIELD, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bland v. State
997 So. 2d 438 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Hastings v. Krischer
840 So. 2d 267 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Jacobs v. State
827 So. 2d 294 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
755 So. 2d 816, 2000 WL 424101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.