Gore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gore v. State

490 So. 2d 1366, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1531, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8735

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 10, 1986

DocketNo. 86-997

StatusPublished

This text of 490 So. 2d 1366 (Gore 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

Gore v. State, 490 So. 2d 1366, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1531, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8735 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

In his petition for writ of mandamus in this court the petitioner alleges that (1) he has filed a 3.850 motion in the circuit court of Orange County, (2) the circuit court ordered a response from the State within 30 days, and (3) the State has failed to respond within that time. Petitioner wants this court to issue a writ of mandamus to the state attorney’s office requiring compliance with the circuit court order or for this court to issue an order granting the 3.850 motion. This court can do neither and denies the petition for writ of mandamus.

Petitioner’s remedy under the facts alleged is to petition the trial court either [1367]*1367to take further action to require the state attorney to respond or to act on petitioner’s 3.850 motion without a response from the State.

PETITION DENIED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.

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

COWART, Judge.

In his petition for writ of mandamus in this court the petitioner alleges that (1) he has filed a 3.850 motion in the circuit court of Orange County, (2) the circuit court ordered a response from the State within 30 days, and (3) the State has failed to respond within that time. Petitioner wants this court to issue a writ of mandamus to the state attorney’s office requiring compliance with the circuit court order or for this court to issue an order granting the 3.850 motion. This court can do neither and denies the petition for writ of mandamus.

Petitioner’s remedy under the facts alleged is to petition the trial court either [1367]*1367to take further action to require the state attorney to respond or to act on petitioner’s 3.850 motion without a response from the State.

PETITION DENIED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 So. 2d 1366, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1531, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gore-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.