Pierce v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pierce v. State

919 So. 2d 511, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 19542, 2005 WL 3357768

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Pierce v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 875 So. 2d 726 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 12, 2005·No. No. 1D05-3147·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As it pertains to petitioner’s motion and amended motion for postconvietion relief, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot in light of the trial court’s recent order denying those motions. The remaining relief sought by the petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot in light of the trial court’s order directing the filing of written responses to the pending motion for in-camera inspection. See Munn v. Florida Parole Commission, 807 So.2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

ERVIN, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

As it pertains to petitioner’s motion and amended motion for postconvietion relief, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot in light of the trial court’s recent order denying those motions. The remaining relief sought by the petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot in light of the trial court’s order directing the filing of written responses to the pending motion for in-camera inspection. See Munn v. Florida Parole Commission, 807 So.2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

ERVIN, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Pierce v. State, 919 So. 2d 511, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 19542, 2005 WL 3357768 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

919 So. 2d 511 (Pierce v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related