Horkene Terrell Cade v. State of Florida

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 17, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-2339 Lower Tribunal Nos. 14-CF-61-A-M, 14-CF-149-A-M & 14-CF-158-A-M ________________

Horkene Terrell Cade, Petitioner,

vs.

State of Florida, Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Mandamus.

Horkene Terrell Cade, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for respondent.

Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Horkene Terrell Cade petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus. He

requests that we compel the trial court to enter a written order on his motion

to correct illegal sentence so that he may file an appeal.

But the trial court entered a written order denying the motion in July

2025. Since the trial court did so, there is no action for us to compel. See

State v. McRae, 38 So. 605, 606 (Fla. 1905) (“[T]he writ will never be granted

in cases when, if issued, it would prove unavailing, or when compliance with

it would be nugatory in its effects, or would be without beneficial results and

fruitless to the relator.”); State ex rel. Knott v. Haskell, 72 So. 651, 659 (Fla.

1916) (“The writ of mandamus is granted by the courts to enforce the

performance of a ministerial duty imposed by law where such duty has not

been performed as the law requires.”); State ex rel. Buckwalter v. City of

Lakeland, 150 So. 508, 511 (Fla. 1933) (“A writ of mandamus is a common-

law writ used to coerce the performance of any and all official duties where

the official charged by law with the performance of such duty refused or failed

to perform the same . . . .”). For that reason, the petition is denied.

Petition denied.