Itturaldes v. State

935 So. 2d 1283, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14248, 2006 WL 2451305
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 25, 2006
DocketNo. 5D06-1500
StatusPublished

This text of 935 So. 2d 1283 (Itturaldes 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
Itturaldes v. State, 935 So. 2d 1283, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14248, 2006 WL 2451305 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

MONACO, J.

Juan Itturaldes filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this court seeking a belated appeal of his 1999 conviction and sentence and other relief. Mandamus is not the appropriate remedy for seeking a belated appeal, because the granting of that relief is not a ministerial duty. See Austin v. Crosby, 866 So.2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Thus, as required by rule 9.040(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we consider his filing as a petition for belated appeal under rule 9.141(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, which is the proper remedy.

It appears that Mr. Itturaldes filed a pro se notice of appeal from this very same conviction and sentence in 1999. Because he failed to prosecute his appeal, however, it was dismissed. Moreover, Mr. Ittu-raldes has failed to point out any exception to the two-year time limit contained in rule 9.141(c)(4) under which he could seek a [1284]*1284belated appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition.

DENIED.

PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Austin v. Crosby
866 So. 2d 742 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
935 So. 2d 1283, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14248, 2006 WL 2451305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/itturaldes-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.