Middleton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Middleton v. State

844 So. 2d 807, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7016, 2003 WL 21077430

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 2003

DocketNo. 3D03-634

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 844 So. 2d 807 (Middleton 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

Middleton v. State, 844 So. 2d 807, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7016, 2003 WL 21077430 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Middleton appeals from an order denying his “Motion of Enquiries,” which we read as a denial of mandamus relief, and which we treat as a denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. In his motion, Middleton sought enforcement of a May 23, 2002 order, which he claimed granted his 3.800 motion. However no copy of the May 23, 2002 order was provided, and although the circuit court docket sheet indicates that a 3.800 motion was forwarded to the trial judge on February 15, 2002, there is no indication that a ruling was issued on that motion on either May 23, 2002, or at any time thereafter. Moreover, the defendant’s 3.800 motion cannot be found in the court file. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the relief sought. We affirm this ruling, without prejudice to defendant’s right to seek relief either by filing another copy of his February 15, 2002 motion, or by filing a new 3.800 motion.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Middleton appeals from an order denying his “Motion of Enquiries,” which we read as a denial of mandamus relief, and which we treat as a denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. In his motion, Middleton sought enforcement of a May 23, 2002 order, which he claimed granted his 3.800 motion. However no copy of the May 23, 2002 order was provided, and although the circuit court docket sheet indicates that a 3.800 motion was forwarded to the trial judge on February 15, 2002, there is no indication that a ruling was issued on that motion on either May 23, 2002, or at any time thereafter. Moreover, the defendant’s 3.800 motion cannot be found in the court file. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the relief sought. We affirm this ruling, without prejudice to defendant’s right to seek relief either by filing another copy of his February 15, 2002 motion, or by filing a new 3.800 motion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

844 So. 2d 807, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7016, 2003 WL 21077430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middleton-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack