Itturaldes v. State

935 So. 2d 1283, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14248, 2006 WL 2451305
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 25, 2006·No. No. 5D06-1500·Published

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

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

935 So. 2d 1283 (Itturaldes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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