Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Hyppolite v. State

Hyppolite v. State

259 So. 3d 95
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 4, 2018
DocketCASE NO.: 2D18-4198
StatusPublished

This text of 259 So. 3d 95 (Hyppolite 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
Hyppolite v. State, 259 So. 3d 95 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

As it appears that the proceedings in the circuit court relative to the petitioner's motion for postconviction relief are progressing, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Cf. Munn v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 807 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). This denial is without prejudice to the petitioner to file a new petition for writ of mandamus if the postconviction court has not entered a final order on the motion within 90 days of the date of this order, provided that the petitioner is unrepresented by counsel in the postconviction proceeding.

NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.

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

Related

Munn v. Florida Parole Commission
807 So. 2d 733 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
259 So. 3d 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyppolite-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.