Jordan v. State

785 So. 2d 1287, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7896, 2001 WL 627609
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jordan v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 728 So. 2d 748
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 8, 2001·No. No. 5D01-830·Published

Opinion

COBB, J.

Petitioner, Corey Jordan, filed a Rule 3.850 motion in the trial court, along with an emergency motion to compel and preserve exculpatory testimony. When the trial court failed to rule on the motions, petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. In response to our rule to show cause, the state has provided a copy of the trial court’s order directing the state to file a response to the Rule 3.850 motion. However, the order does not rule on petitioner’s emergency motion to compel and preserve exculpatory evidence.

In his motion, petitioner alleges that a witness who could provide exculpatory evidence has been ordered deported and that it is necessary to preserve the witness’ testimony before his deportation. We grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to rule forthwith on petitioner’s emergency motion.

PETITION GRANTED.

THOMPSON, C.J. and PLEUS, J., concur.

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

Jordan v. State, 785 So. 2d 1287, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 7896, 2001 WL 627609 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

785 So. 2d 1287 (Jordan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.