McBride v. State

443 So. 2d 416
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 4, 1984
Docket83-2241
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 443 So. 2d 416 (McBride 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
McBride v. State, 443 So. 2d 416 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

443 So.2d 416 (1984)

Alphonso McBRIDE, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 83-2241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

January 4, 1984.

Alphonso McBride, Raiford, pro se petitioner.

*417 No appearance required for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The matter is before us upon Petition For Writ of Mandamus and Responses of the State of Florida which agree that Petitioner is entitled to relief.

It appears that Petitioner duly filed his Motion For Post-Conviction Relief, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Indian River County, Florida, sometime in March, 1983. It appears that the Honorable G. Kendall Sharp, Circuit Judge, endorsed the original motion in his handwriting "motion denied 3/14/83." However, no formal order has been filed or rendered. We issued an order to show cause on October 31, 1983, and, to date, a proper order has not been entered. The failure to promptly issue a formal order results in an inappropriate delay as concerns Petitioner's appellate rights.

We grant the petition for Writ of Mandamus. Flagship Nat. Bank of Miami v. Testa, 429 So.2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State ex rel. Locke v. Sandler, 156 Fla. 136, 23 So.2d 276 (1945); State ex rel. Palmer v. Atkinson, 116 Fla. 366, 156 So. 726 (1934).

We respectfully direct the Honorable G. Kendall Sharp, Circuit Judge, or his successor, to enter a formal ruling upon Petitioner's Motion For Post-Conviction Relief, in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, within ten (10) days of receipt of this order, or from date issued. We are content that Respondent will comply with the directions of this Court without the necessity for the issuance of the peremptory writ.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus is

GRANTED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Deboles v. State
960 So. 2d 899 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Lewis v. State
934 So. 2d 605 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Moore v. Kaplan
640 So. 2d 199 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Dennis v. Rivkind
633 So. 2d 104 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Mason v. Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit
603 So. 2d 94 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Brown v. Roberts
581 So. 2d 978 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Benczo v. Korda
528 So. 2d 555 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Davis v. Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court, Lee County, Florida
491 So. 2d 1232 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
443 So. 2d 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcbride-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.