Mills v. Florida Department of Corrections

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mills v. Florida Department of Corrections

204 So. 3d 571, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17384

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 21, 2016·No. No. 1D16-2293·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because we find that the Appellant has sufficiently alleged' that “collateral legal consequences that affect the rights of a party flow from the issue to be determined,” Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla.1992) (citing Keezel v. State, 358 So.2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)), we vacate the circuit court’s order dismissing the petition for writ of mandamus as moot, and we remand this matter for a determination on the merits of the petition. This opinion shall not be construed as passing upon the merits of the underlying petition.

ORDER VACATED; REMANDED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because we find that the Appellant has sufficiently alleged' that “collateral legal consequences that affect the rights of a party flow from the issue to be determined,” Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla.1992) (citing Keezel v. State, 358 So.2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)), we vacate the circuit court’s order dismissing the petition for writ of mandamus as moot, and we remand this matter for a determination on the merits of the petition. This opinion shall not be construed as passing upon the merits of the underlying petition.

ORDER VACATED; REMANDED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Mills v. Florida Department of Corrections, 204 So. 3d 571, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17384 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

204 So. 3d 571 (Mills v. Florida Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related