Ingram v. State

60 So. 3d 506, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5642, 2011 WL 1502209
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ingram v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 990 So. 2d 16
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 21, 2011·No. No. 1D11-0554·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This petition for writ of mandamus seeks to compel a ruling on a motion for leave to supplement. Petitioner alleges that he filed the motion in the circuit court in 2003; however, the circuit court has no record of ever receiving the motion. Accordingly, because there is no pleading pending below, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Casen v. McDonough, 962 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Petitioner alleges that he did timely place his pleading into the hands of prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, within 30 days of issuance of mandate in this cause, petitioner shall file with the clerk of the circuit court a copy of the pleading. See Rife v. State, 958 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Hartley v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrections, 954 So.2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

PETITION DENIED.

WEBSTER, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

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

Ingram v. State, 60 So. 3d 506, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5642, 2011 WL 1502209 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

60 So. 3d 506 (Ingram v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

CASEN v. McDonough
962 So. 2d 977 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Hartley v. Florida Department of Corrections
954 So. 2d 684 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Rife v. State
958 So. 2d 1053 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)